From a5ebd593d40145a032ac8e6b7086f41314ddf34c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Wolf Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:14:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Update GoogleTest to latest master --- rhubarb/lib/googletest/.clang-format | 4 + .../.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/00-bug_report.md | 43 + .../ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature_request.md | 24 + .../.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml | 1 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/.gitignore | 84 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/.travis.yml | 46 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/BUILD.bazel | 190 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/CMakeLists.txt | 24 +- rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTING.md | 130 + .../googletest/{googletest => }/CONTRIBUTORS | 26 + .../lib/googletest/{googlemock => }/LICENSE | 0 rhubarb/lib/googletest/README.md | 214 +- rhubarb/lib/googletest/WORKSPACE | 24 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/linux-presubmit.sh | 126 + .../runtests.sh => ci/macos-presubmit.sh} | 68 +- rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_config.yml | 1 + .../lib/googletest/docs/_data/navigation.yml | 43 + .../lib/googletest/docs/_layouts/default.html | 58 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_sass/main.scss | 200 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/advanced.md | 2318 ++++++++ .../lib/googletest/docs/assets/css/style.scss | 5 + .../docs/community_created_documentation.md | 7 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/faq.md | 693 +++ .../lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md | 241 + .../lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cook_book.md | 4301 ++++++++++++++ rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_faq.md | 390 ++ .../lib/googletest/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md | 700 +++ rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/index.md | 22 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/pkgconfig.md | 148 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/platforms.md | 35 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/primer.md | 482 ++ .../lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-bazel.md | 161 + .../lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-cmake.md | 156 + .../lib/googletest/docs/reference/actions.md | 115 + .../googletest/docs/reference/assertions.md | 633 ++ .../lib/googletest/docs/reference/matchers.md | 283 + .../lib/googletest/docs/reference/mocking.md | 587 ++ .../lib/googletest/docs/reference/testing.md | 1431 +++++ rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/samples.md | 22 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CHANGES | 126 - .../lib/googletest/googlemock/CMakeLists.txt | 132 +- .../lib/googletest/googlemock/CONTRIBUTORS | 40 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/Makefile.am | 224 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/README.md | 367 +- .../lib/googletest/googlemock/build-aux/.keep | 0 .../googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in | 10 + .../googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in | 10 + .../lib/googletest/googlemock/configure.ac | 146 - .../googletest/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md | 562 -- .../googletest/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md | 3675 ------------ .../googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md | 280 - .../googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md | 132 - .../googlemock/docs/Documentation.md | 12 - .../googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md | 439 -- .../docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md | 628 -- .../googletest/googlemock/docs/KnownIssues.md | 19 - .../lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/README.md | 4 + .../googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md | 525 -- .../googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md | 3250 ----------- .../googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md | 11 - .../googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md | 439 -- .../docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md | 624 -- .../googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md | 534 -- .../googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md | 3342 ----------- .../googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md | 12 - .../googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md | 439 -- .../docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md | 628 -- .../googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md | 556 -- .../googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md | 3432 ----------- .../googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md | 12 - .../googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md | 439 -- .../docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md | 628 -- .../googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h | 1154 ++-- .../include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h | 38 +- .../include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h | 479 ++ .../include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h | 2377 -------- .../gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump | 794 --- .../gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h | 1095 ---- .../gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump | 291 - .../include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h | 2179 ------- .../gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump | 672 --- .../gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h | 397 -- .../gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump | 161 - .../googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h | 3891 ++++++++----- .../include/gmock/gmock-more-actions.h | 705 ++- .../include/gmock/gmock-more-matchers.h | 48 +- .../include/gmock/gmock-nice-strict.h | 261 + .../include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h | 733 ++- .../googlemock/include/gmock/gmock.h | 26 +- .../include/gmock/internal/custom/README.md | 16 + .../internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h | 10 +- .../custom/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump | 10 - .../gmock/internal/custom/gmock-matchers.h | 13 +- .../gmock/internal/custom/gmock-port.h | 19 +- .../internal/gmock-generated-internal-utils.h | 279 - .../gmock-generated-internal-utils.h.pump | 136 - .../gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h | 344 +- .../include/gmock/internal/gmock-port.h | 40 +- .../include/gmock/internal/gmock-pp.h | 279 + .../lib/googletest/googlemock/make/Makefile | 101 - .../googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock.sln | 32 - .../googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock.vcproj | 191 - .../googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_config.vsprops | 15 - .../googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_main.vcproj | 187 - .../googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_test.vcproj | 201 - .../googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock.sln | 32 - .../googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock.vcxproj | 82 - .../googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_config.props | 19 - .../googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_main.vcxproj | 88 - .../googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_test.vcxproj | 101 - .../googletest/googlemock/scripts/README.md | 5 + .../googlemock/scripts/fuse_gmock_files.py | 126 +- .../googlemock/scripts/generator/README | 9 +- .../googlemock/scripts/generator/cpp/ast.py | 2910 +++++----- .../scripts/generator/cpp/gmock_class.py | 154 +- .../scripts/generator/cpp/gmock_class_test.py | 250 +- .../scripts/generator/cpp/keywords.py | 3 - .../scripts/generator/cpp/tokenize.py | 3 - .../googlemock/scripts/generator/cpp/utils.py | 4 - .../googlemock/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py | 1 - .../googlemock/scripts/gmock-config.in | 303 - .../googlemock/scripts/gmock_doctor.py | 640 -- .../googletest/googlemock/scripts/upload.py | 1387 ----- .../googletest/googlemock/src/gmock-all.cc | 3 +- .../googlemock/src/gmock-cardinalities.cc | 15 +- .../googlemock/src/gmock-internal-utils.cc | 56 +- .../googlemock/src/gmock-matchers.cc | 293 +- .../googlemock/src/gmock-spec-builders.cc | 303 +- .../lib/googletest/googlemock/src/gmock.cc | 56 +- .../googletest/googlemock/src/gmock_main.cc | 24 +- .../googletest/googlemock/test/BUILD.bazel | 118 + .../googlemock/test/gmock-actions_test.cc | 906 +-- .../test/gmock-cardinalities_test.cc | 17 +- .../test/gmock-function-mocker_test.cc | 986 ++++ .../test/gmock-generated-actions_test.cc | 1228 ---- .../gmock-generated-function-mockers_test.cc | 622 -- .../gmock-generated-internal-utils_test.cc | 127 - .../test/gmock-generated-matchers_test.cc | 1286 ---- .../test/gmock-internal-utils_test.cc | 267 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock-matchers_test.cc | 4352 +++++++++++--- .../test/gmock-more-actions_test.cc | 1257 +++- .../googlemock/test/gmock-nice-strict_test.cc | 205 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock-port_test.cc | 3 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock-pp-string_test.cc | 206 + .../googlemock/test/gmock-pp_test.cc | 83 + .../test/gmock-spec-builders_test.cc | 185 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_all_test.cc | 7 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_ex_test.cc | 9 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_leak_test.py | 4 - .../googlemock/test/gmock_leak_test_.cc | 3 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_link2_test.cc | 5 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_link_test.cc | 5 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_link_test.h | 75 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_output_test.py | 23 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_output_test_.cc | 24 +- .../test/gmock_output_test_golden.txt | 17 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_stress_test.cc | 96 +- .../googletest/googlemock/test/gmock_test.cc | 149 +- .../googlemock/test/gmock_test_utils.py | 14 +- rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/CHANGES | 157 - .../lib/googletest/googletest/CMakeLists.txt | 201 +- rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/LICENSE | 28 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/Makefile.am | 310 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/README.md | 351 +- .../lib/googletest/googletest/build-aux/.keep | 0 .../googletest/cmake/Config.cmake.in | 9 + .../googletest/googletest/cmake/gtest.pc.in | 9 + .../googletest/cmake/gtest_main.pc.in | 10 + .../googletest/cmake/internal_utils.cmake | 198 +- .../googletest/cmake/libgtest.la.in | 21 + .../googletest/codegear/gtest.cbproj | 138 - .../googletest/codegear/gtest.groupproj | 54 - .../googletest/codegear/gtest_main.cbproj | 82 - .../googletest/codegear/gtest_unittest.cbproj | 88 - .../lib/googletest/googletest/configure.ac | 68 - .../googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md | 2183 ------- .../googletest/googletest/docs/DevGuide.md | 126 - .../googletest/docs/Documentation.md | 14 - rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/FAQ.md | 1087 ---- .../lib/googletest/googletest/docs/Primer.md | 502 -- .../googletest/googletest/docs/PumpManual.md | 177 - .../lib/googletest/googletest/docs/README.md | 4 + .../lib/googletest/googletest/docs/Samples.md | 14 - .../googletest/docs/V1_5_AdvancedGuide.md | 2096 ------- .../googletest/docs/V1_5_Documentation.md | 12 - .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_FAQ.md | 886 --- .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_Primer.md | 497 -- .../googletest/docs/V1_5_PumpManual.md | 177 - .../googletest/docs/V1_5_XcodeGuide.md | 93 - .../googletest/docs/V1_6_AdvancedGuide.md | 2178 ------- .../googletest/docs/V1_6_Documentation.md | 14 - .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_FAQ.md | 1038 ---- .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_Primer.md | 501 -- .../googletest/docs/V1_6_PumpManual.md | 177 - .../googletest/docs/V1_6_Samples.md | 14 - .../googletest/docs/V1_6_XcodeGuide.md | 93 - .../googletest/docs/V1_7_AdvancedGuide.md | 2181 ------- .../googletest/docs/V1_7_Documentation.md | 14 - .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_FAQ.md | 1082 ---- .../googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_Primer.md | 501 -- .../googletest/docs/V1_7_PumpManual.md | 177 - .../googletest/docs/V1_7_Samples.md | 14 - .../googletest/docs/V1_7_XcodeGuide.md | 93 - .../googletest/googletest/docs/XcodeGuide.md | 93 - .../include/gtest/gtest-death-test.h | 116 +- .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest-matchers.h | 930 +++ .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest-message.h | 63 +- .../include/gtest/gtest-param-test.h | 1233 +--- .../include/gtest/gtest-param-test.h.pump | 510 -- .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest-printers.h | 920 +-- .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest-spi.h | 26 +- .../include/gtest/gtest-test-part.h | 49 +- .../include/gtest/gtest-typed-test.h | 266 +- .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h | 1091 ++-- .../include/gtest/gtest_pred_impl.h | 87 +- .../googletest/include/gtest/gtest_prod.h | 25 +- .../include/gtest/internal/custom/README.md | 56 + .../gtest/internal/custom/gtest-port.h | 40 +- .../gtest/internal/custom/gtest-printers.h | 10 +- .../include/gtest/internal/custom/gtest.h | 12 +- .../internal/gtest-death-test-internal.h | 181 +- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-filepath.h | 21 +- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-internal.h | 990 ++-- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-linked_ptr.h | 243 - .../internal/gtest-param-util-generated.h | 5146 ----------------- .../gtest-param-util-generated.h.pump | 286 - .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-param-util.h | 580 +- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-port-arch.h | 39 +- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-port.h | 1207 ++-- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-string.h | 40 +- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-tuple.h | 1020 ---- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-tuple.h.pump | 347 -- .../include/gtest/internal/gtest-type-util.h | 3338 +---------- .../gtest/internal/gtest-type-util.h.pump | 297 - .../googletest/googletest/m4/acx_pthread.m4 | 363 -- rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/m4/gtest.m4 | 74 - .../lib/googletest/googletest/make/Makefile | 82 - .../googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest-md.sln | 45 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest-md.vcproj | 126 - .../lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest.sln | 45 - .../googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest.vcproj | 126 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_main-md.vcproj | 129 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_main.vcproj | 129 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_prod_test-md.vcproj | 164 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_prod_test.vcproj | 164 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_unittest-md.vcproj | 147 - .../googletest/msvc/gtest_unittest.vcproj | 147 - .../googletest/samples/prime_tables.h | 37 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample1.cc | 6 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample1.h | 10 +- .../googletest/samples/sample10_unittest.cc | 13 +- .../googletest/samples/sample1_unittest.cc | 6 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample2.cc | 4 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample2.h | 19 +- .../googletest/samples/sample2_unittest.cc | 12 +- .../googletest/samples/sample3-inl.h | 24 +- .../googletest/samples/sample3_unittest.cc | 28 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample4.cc | 12 +- .../googletest/googletest/samples/sample4.h | 12 +- .../googletest/samples/sample4_unittest.cc | 14 +- .../googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc | 25 +- .../googletest/samples/sample6_unittest.cc | 31 +- .../googletest/samples/sample7_unittest.cc | 41 +- .../googletest/samples/sample8_unittest.cc | 59 +- .../googletest/samples/sample9_unittest.cc | 24 +- .../googletest/googletest/scripts/README.md | 5 + .../googletest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py | 35 +- .../googletest/scripts/gen_gtest_pred_impl.py | 59 +- .../lib/googletest/googletest/scripts/pump.py | 855 --- .../googletest/scripts/release_docs.py | 2 +- .../googletest/scripts/run_with_path.py | 32 + .../googletest/googletest/scripts/upload.py | 45 +- .../googletest/googletest/src/gtest-all.cc | 6 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-death-test.cc | 602 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-filepath.cc | 78 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-internal-inl.h | 378 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-matchers.cc | 97 + .../googletest/googletest/src/gtest-port.cc | 494 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-printers.cc | 300 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-test-part.cc | 36 +- .../googletest/src/gtest-typed-test.cc | 31 +- .../lib/googletest/googletest/src/gtest.cc | 3704 ++++++++---- .../googletest/googletest/src/gtest_main.cc | 22 +- .../googletest/googletest/test/BUILD.bazel | 590 ++ ...> googletest-break-on-failure-unittest.py} | 14 +- ... googletest-break-on-failure-unittest_.cc} | 6 +- ...py => googletest-catch-exceptions-test.py} | 163 +- ...c => googletest-catch-exceptions-test_.cc} | 116 +- ...color_test.py => googletest-color-test.py} | 9 +- ...lor_test_.cc => googletest-color-test_.cc} | 11 +- ..._test.cc => googletest-death-test-test.cc} | 259 +- ...st.cc => googletest-death-test_ex_test.cc} | 7 +- ...var_test.py => googletest-env-var-test.py} | 29 +- ...r_test_.cc => googletest-env-var-test_.cc} | 20 +- .../test/googletest-failfast-unittest.py | 410 ++ .../test/googletest-failfast-unittest_.cc | 167 + ...th_test.cc => googletest-filepath-test.cc} | 23 +- ...ttest.py => googletest-filter-unittest.py} | 52 +- ...est_.cc => googletest-filter-unittest_.cc} | 9 +- .../googletest-global-environment-unittest.py | 72 + ...oogletest-global-environment-unittest_.cc} | 53 +- .../test/googletest-json-outfiles-test.py | 191 + .../test/googletest-json-output-unittest.py | 848 +++ ...t.py => googletest-list-tests-unittest.py} | 24 +- ....cc => googletest-list-tests-unittest_.cc} | 13 +- .../test/googletest-listener-test.cc | 518 ++ ...age_test.cc => googletest-message-test.cc} | 7 +- ...ons_test.cc => googletest-options-test.cc} | 36 +- ... => googletest-output-test-golden-lin.txt} | 833 ++- ...tput_test.py => googletest-output-test.py} | 52 +- ...ut_test_.cc => googletest-output-test_.cc} | 340 +- ...oogletest-param-test-invalid-name1-test.py | 63 + ...ogletest-param-test-invalid-name1-test_.cc | 50 + ...oogletest-param-test-invalid-name2-test.py | 62 + ...ogletest-param-test-invalid-name2-test_.cc | 55 + ..._test.cc => googletest-param-test-test.cc} | 452 +- ...st_test.h => googletest-param-test-test.h} | 16 +- ...test.cc => googletest-param-test2-test.cc} | 34 +- ...t-port_test.cc => googletest-port-test.cc} | 124 +- ...rs_test.cc => googletest-printers-test.cc} | 919 ++- .../googletest-setuptestsuite-test.py} | 50 +- .../googletest-setuptestsuite-test_.cc} | 33 +- ...fle_test.py => googletest-shuffle-test.py} | 8 +- ...e_test_.cc => googletest-shuffle-test_.cc} | 12 +- ...t_test.cc => googletest-test-part-test.cc} | 38 +- ...py => googletest-throw-on-failure-test.py} | 17 +- ...c => googletest-throw-on-failure-test_.cc} | 7 +- ...st.py => googletest-uninitialized-test.py} | 13 +- ..._.cc => googletest-uninitialized-test_.cc} | 7 +- .../googletest/test/gtest-linked_ptr_test.cc | 154 - .../googletest/test/gtest-listener_test.cc | 311 - .../googletest/test/gtest-tuple_test.cc | 320 - .../googletest/test/gtest-typed-test2_test.cc | 11 +- .../googletest/test/gtest-typed-test_test.cc | 233 +- .../googletest/test/gtest-typed-test_test.h | 18 +- .../test/gtest-unittest-api_test.cc | 257 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_all_test.cc | 21 +- .../test/gtest_assert_by_exception_test.cc | 116 + .../googletest/test/gtest_environment_test.cc | 12 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_help_test.py | 9 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_help_test_.cc | 3 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_json_test_utils.py | 60 + .../test/gtest_list_output_unittest.py | 286 + .../test/gtest_list_output_unittest_.cc | 77 + .../googletest/test/gtest_main_unittest.cc | 7 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_no_test_unittest.cc | 2 - .../test/gtest_pred_impl_unittest.cc | 67 +- .../test/gtest_premature_exit_test.cc | 11 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_prod_test.cc | 9 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_repeat_test.cc | 36 +- .../test/gtest_skip_check_output_test.py | 59 + ...test_skip_environment_check_output_test.py | 54 + .../gtest_skip_in_environment_setup_test.cc | 49 + .../googletest/test/gtest_skip_test.cc | 55 + .../googletest/test/gtest_sole_header_test.cc | 3 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_stress_test.cc | 14 +- .../gtest_test_macro_stack_footprint_test.cc | 89 + .../googletest/test/gtest_test_utils.py | 54 +- .../test/gtest_testbridge_test.py} | 63 +- .../gtest_testbridge_test_.cc} | 25 +- .../test/gtest_throw_on_failure_ex_test.cc | 6 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_unittest.cc | 2399 ++++---- .../test/gtest_xml_outfile1_test_.cc | 10 +- .../test/gtest_xml_outfile2_test_.cc | 10 +- .../test/gtest_xml_outfiles_test.py | 29 +- .../test/gtest_xml_output_unittest.py | 248 +- .../test/gtest_xml_output_unittest_.cc | 48 +- .../googletest/test/gtest_xml_test_utils.py | 59 +- .../googletest/googletest/test/production.cc | 5 +- .../googletest/googletest/test/production.h | 13 +- .../xcode/Config/DebugProject.xcconfig | 30 - .../xcode/Config/FrameworkTarget.xcconfig | 17 - .../googletest/xcode/Config/General.xcconfig | 41 - .../xcode/Config/ReleaseProject.xcconfig | 32 - .../xcode/Config/StaticLibraryTarget.xcconfig | 18 - .../xcode/Config/TestTarget.xcconfig | 8 - .../googletest/xcode/Resources/Info.plist | 30 - .../xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/Info.plist | 28 - .../WidgetFramework.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj | 457 -- .../xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/widget.cc | 63 - .../Samples/FrameworkSample/widget_test.cc | 68 - .../xcode/Scripts/versiongenerate.py | 100 - .../xcode/gtest.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj | 1135 ---- rhubarb/lib/googletest/library.json | 62 + rhubarb/lib/googletest/travis.sh | 15 - rhubarb/src/time/centiseconds.cpp | 10 +- rhubarb/src/time/centiseconds.h | 8 +- rhubarb/tests/TimelineTests.cpp | 1 + 388 files changed, 46467 insertions(+), 85663 deletions(-) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.clang-format create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/00-bug_report.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature_request.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.gitignore delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/.travis.yml create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/BUILD.bazel create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTING.md rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/{googletest => }/CONTRIBUTORS (61%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/{googlemock => }/LICENSE (100%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/WORKSPACE create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/linux-presubmit.sh rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/{googletest/xcode/Scripts/runtests.sh => ci/macos-presubmit.sh} (58%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_config.yml create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_data/navigation.yml create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_layouts/default.html create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_sass/main.scss create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/advanced.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/assets/css/style.scss create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/community_created_documentation.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/faq.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cook_book.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_faq.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/index.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/pkgconfig.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/platforms.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/primer.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-bazel.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-cmake.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/actions.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/assertions.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/matchers.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/mocking.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/testing.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/samples.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CHANGES delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CONTRIBUTORS delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/Makefile.am delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/build-aux/.keep create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/configure.ac delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/KnownIssues.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-nice-strict.h create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/internal/custom/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/internal/gmock-generated-internal-utils.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/internal/gmock-generated-internal-utils.h.pump create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/internal/gmock-pp.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/make/Makefile delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock.sln delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_config.vsprops delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_main.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock_test.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock.sln delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock.vcxproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_config.props delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_main.vcxproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/msvc/2010/gmock_test.vcxproj create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/scripts/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/scripts/gmock-config.in delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/scripts/gmock_doctor.py delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/scripts/upload.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/BUILD.bazel create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-function-mocker_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-generated-actions_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-generated-function-mockers_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-generated-internal-utils_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-generated-matchers_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-pp-string_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/test/gmock-pp_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/CHANGES delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/LICENSE delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/Makefile.am delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/build-aux/.keep create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/cmake/Config.cmake.in create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/cmake/gtest.pc.in create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/cmake/gtest_main.pc.in create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/cmake/libgtest.la.in delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/codegear/gtest.cbproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/codegear/gtest.groupproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/codegear/gtest_main.cbproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/codegear/gtest_unittest.cbproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/configure.ac delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/DevGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/FAQ.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/Primer.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/PumpManual.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/Samples.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_AdvancedGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_FAQ.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_Primer.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_PumpManual.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_5_XcodeGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_AdvancedGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_FAQ.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_Primer.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_PumpManual.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_Samples.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_6_XcodeGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_AdvancedGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_Documentation.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_FAQ.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_Primer.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_PumpManual.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_Samples.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/V1_7_XcodeGuide.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/docs/XcodeGuide.md create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-matchers.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-param-test.h.pump create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/custom/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-linked_ptr.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-param-util-generated.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-param-util-generated.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-tuple.h delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-tuple.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-type-util.h.pump delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/m4/acx_pthread.m4 delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/m4/gtest.m4 delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/make/Makefile delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest-md.sln delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest-md.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest.sln delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_main-md.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_main.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_prod_test-md.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_prod_test.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_unittest-md.vcproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/msvc/gtest_unittest.vcproj create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/scripts/README.md delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/scripts/pump.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/scripts/run_with_path.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/src/gtest-matchers.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/BUILD.bazel rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_break_on_failure_unittest.py => googletest-break-on-failure-unittest.py} (95%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_break_on_failure_unittest_.cc => googletest-break-on-failure-unittest_.cc} (98%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_catch_exceptions_test.py => googletest-catch-exceptions-test.py} (61%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_catch_exceptions_test_.cc => googletest-catch-exceptions-test_.cc} (69%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_color_test.py => googletest-color-test.py} (95%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_color_test_.cc => googletest-color-test_.cc} (86%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-death-test_test.cc => googletest-death-test-test.cc} (88%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-death-test_ex_test.cc => googletest-death-test_ex_test.cc} (95%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_env_var_test.py => googletest-env-var-test.py} (77%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_env_var_test_.cc => googletest-env-var-test_.cc} (93%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-failfast-unittest.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-failfast-unittest_.cc rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-filepath_test.cc => googletest-filepath-test.cc} (96%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_filter_unittest.py => googletest-filter-unittest.py} (94%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_filter_unittest_.cc => googletest-filter-unittest_.cc} (93%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-global-environment-unittest.py rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/{xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/widget.h => test/googletest-global-environment-unittest_.cc} (67%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-json-outfiles-test.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-json-output-unittest.py rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_list_tests_unittest.py => googletest-list-tests-unittest.py} (90%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_list_tests_unittest_.cc => googletest-list-tests-unittest_.cc} (94%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-listener-test.cc rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-message_test.cc => googletest-message-test.cc} (98%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-options_test.cc => googletest-options-test.cc} (91%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_output_test_golden_lin.txt => googletest-output-test-golden-lin.txt} (52%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_output_test.py => googletest-output-test.py} (88%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_output_test_.cc => googletest-output-test_.cc} (77%) create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-param-test-invalid-name1-test.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-param-test-invalid-name1-test_.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-param-test-invalid-name2-test.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-param-test-invalid-name2-test_.cc rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-param-test_test.cc => googletest-param-test-test.cc} (73%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-param-test_test.h => googletest-param-test-test.h} (85%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-param-test2_test.cc => googletest-param-test2-test.cc} (73%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-port_test.cc => googletest-port-test.cc} (93%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-printers_test.cc => googletest-printers-test.cc} (66%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/{xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/runtests.sh => test/googletest-setuptestsuite-test.py} (63%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/{codegear/gtest_link.cc => test/googletest-setuptestsuite-test_.cc} (76%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_shuffle_test.py => googletest-shuffle-test.py} (98%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_shuffle_test_.cc => googletest-shuffle-test_.cc} (89%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest-test-part_test.cc => googletest-test-part-test.cc} (86%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_throw_on_failure_test.py => googletest-throw-on-failure-test.py} (90%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_throw_on_failure_test_.cc => googletest-throw-on-failure-test_.cc} (95%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_uninitialized_test.py => googletest-uninitialized-test.py} (90%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/{gtest_uninitialized_test_.cc => googletest-uninitialized-test_.cc} (93%) delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest-linked_ptr_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest-listener_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest-tuple_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_assert_by_exception_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_json_test_utils.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_list_output_unittest.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_list_output_unittest_.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_skip_check_output_test.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_skip_environment_check_output_test.py create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_skip_in_environment_setup_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_skip_test.cc create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/test/gtest_test_macro_stack_footprint_test.cc rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/{googlemock/scripts/upload_gmock.py => googletest/test/gtest_testbridge_test.py} (54%) rename rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/{codegear/gtest_all.cc => test/gtest_testbridge_test_.cc} (79%) delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/DebugProject.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/FrameworkTarget.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/General.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/ReleaseProject.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/StaticLibraryTarget.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Config/TestTarget.xcconfig delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Resources/Info.plist delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/Info.plist delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/WidgetFramework.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/widget.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Samples/FrameworkSample/widget_test.cc delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Scripts/versiongenerate.py delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/gtest.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj create mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/library.json delete mode 100644 rhubarb/lib/googletest/travis.sh diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.clang-format b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.clang-format new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5b9bfe6 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.clang-format @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +# Run manually to reformat a file: +# clang-format -i --style=file +Language: Cpp +BasedOnStyle: Google diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/00-bug_report.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/00-bug_report.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0f7e8b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/00-bug_report.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +name: Bug report +about: Create a report to help us improve +title: '' +labels: 'bug' +assignees: '' +--- + +**Describe the bug** + +Include a clear and concise description of what the problem is, including what +you expected to happen, and what actually happened. + +**Steps to reproduce the bug** + +It's important that we are able to reproduce the problem that you are +experiencing. Please provide all code and relevant steps to reproduce the +problem, including your `BUILD`/`CMakeLists.txt` file and build commands. Links +to a GitHub branch or [godbolt.org](https://godbolt.org/) that demonstrate the +problem are also helpful. + +**Does the bug persist in the most recent commit?** + +We recommend using the latest commit in the master branch in your projects. + +**What operating system and version are you using?** + +If you are using a Linux distribution please include the name and version of the +distribution as well. + +**What compiler and version are you using?** + +Please include the output of `gcc -v` or `clang -v`, or the equivalent for your +compiler. + +**What build system are you using?** + +Please include the output of `bazel --version` or `cmake --version`, or the +equivalent for your build system. + +**Additional context** + +Add any other context about the problem here. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature_request.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature_request.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..70a3a20 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature_request.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +name: Feature request +about: Propose a new feature +title: '' +labels: 'enhancement' +assignees: '' +--- + +**Does the feature exist in the most recent commit?** + +We recommend using the latest commit from GitHub in your projects. + +**Why do we need this feature?** + +Ideally, explain why a combination of existing features cannot be used instead. + +**Describe the proposal** + +Include a detailed description of the feature, with usage examples. + +**Is the feature specific to an operating system, compiler, or build system version?** + +If it is, please specify which versions. + diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3ba13e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +blank_issues_enabled: false diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.gitignore b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f08cb72 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +# Ignore CI build directory +build/ +xcuserdata +cmake-build-debug/ +.idea/ +bazel-bin +bazel-genfiles +bazel-googletest +bazel-out +bazel-testlogs +# python +*.pyc + +# Visual Studio files +.vs +*.sdf +*.opensdf +*.VC.opendb +*.suo +*.user +_ReSharper.Caches/ +Win32-Debug/ +Win32-Release/ +x64-Debug/ +x64-Release/ + +# Ignore autoconf / automake files +Makefile.in +aclocal.m4 +configure +build-aux/ +autom4te.cache/ +googletest/m4/libtool.m4 +googletest/m4/ltoptions.m4 +googletest/m4/ltsugar.m4 +googletest/m4/ltversion.m4 +googletest/m4/lt~obsolete.m4 +googlemock/m4 + +# Ignore generated directories. +googlemock/fused-src/ +googletest/fused-src/ + +# macOS files +.DS_Store +googletest/.DS_Store +googletest/xcode/.DS_Store + +# Ignore cmake generated directories and files. +CMakeFiles +CTestTestfile.cmake +Makefile +cmake_install.cmake +googlemock/CMakeFiles +googlemock/CTestTestfile.cmake +googlemock/Makefile +googlemock/cmake_install.cmake +googlemock/gtest +/bin +/googlemock/gmock.dir +/googlemock/gmock_main.dir +/googlemock/RUN_TESTS.vcxproj.filters +/googlemock/RUN_TESTS.vcxproj +/googlemock/INSTALL.vcxproj.filters +/googlemock/INSTALL.vcxproj +/googlemock/gmock_main.vcxproj.filters +/googlemock/gmock_main.vcxproj +/googlemock/gmock.vcxproj.filters +/googlemock/gmock.vcxproj +/googlemock/gmock.sln +/googlemock/ALL_BUILD.vcxproj.filters +/googlemock/ALL_BUILD.vcxproj +/lib +/Win32 +/ZERO_CHECK.vcxproj.filters +/ZERO_CHECK.vcxproj +/RUN_TESTS.vcxproj.filters +/RUN_TESTS.vcxproj +/INSTALL.vcxproj.filters +/INSTALL.vcxproj +/googletest-distribution.sln +/CMakeCache.txt +/ALL_BUILD.vcxproj.filters +/ALL_BUILD.vcxproj diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.travis.yml b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.travis.yml deleted file mode 100644 index 3204dfa..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/.travis.yml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,46 +0,0 @@ -# Build matrix / environment variable are explained on: -# http://about.travis-ci.org/docs/user/build-configuration/ -# This file can be validated on: -# http://lint.travis-ci.org/ - -install: -# /usr/bin/gcc is 4.6 always, but gcc-X.Y is available. -- if [ "$CXX" = "g++" ]; then export CXX="g++-4.9" CC="gcc-4.9"; fi -# /usr/bin/clang is 3.4, lets override with modern one. -- if [ "$CXX" = "clang++" ] && [ "$TRAVIS_OS_NAME" = "linux" ]; then export CXX="clang++-3.7" CC="clang-3.7"; fi -- echo ${PATH} -- echo ${CXX} -- ${CXX} --version -- ${CXX} -v -addons: - apt: - # List of whitelisted in travis packages for ubuntu-precise can be found here: - # https://github.com/travis-ci/apt-package-whitelist/blob/master/ubuntu-precise - # List of whitelisted in travis apt-sources: - # https://github.com/travis-ci/apt-source-whitelist/blob/master/ubuntu.json - sources: - - ubuntu-toolchain-r-test - - llvm-toolchain-precise-3.7 - packages: - - gcc-4.9 - - g++-4.9 - - clang-3.7 - - valgrind -os: - - linux - - osx -language: cpp -compiler: - - gcc - - clang -script: ./travis.sh -env: - matrix: - - GTEST_TARGET=googletest SHARED_LIB=OFF STATIC_LIB=ON CMAKE_PKG=OFF BUILD_TYPE=debug VERBOSE_MAKE=true VERBOSE - - GTEST_TARGET=googlemock SHARED_LIB=OFF STATIC_LIB=ON CMAKE_PKG=OFF BUILD_TYPE=debug VERBOSE_MAKE=true VERBOSE - - GTEST_TARGET=googlemock SHARED_LIB=OFF STATIC_LIB=ON CMAKE_PKG=OFF BUILD_TYPE=debug CXX_FLAGS=-std=c++11 VERBOSE_MAKE=true VERBOSE -# - GTEST_TARGET=googletest SHARED_LIB=ON STATIC_LIB=ON CMAKE_PKG=ON BUILD_TYPE=release VERBOSE_MAKE=false -# - GTEST_TARGET=googlemock SHARED_LIB=ON STATIC_LIB=ON CMAKE_PKG=ON BUILD_TYPE=release VERBOSE_MAKE=false -notifications: - email: false -sudo: false diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/BUILD.bazel b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/BUILD.bazel new file mode 100644 index 0000000..965c518 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/BUILD.bazel @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +# Copyright 2017 Google Inc. +# All Rights Reserved. +# +# +# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without +# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are +# met: +# +# * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. +# * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above +# copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer +# in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the +# distribution. +# * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its +# contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from +# this software without specific prior written permission. +# +# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS +# "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT +# LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR +# A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT +# OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, +# SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT +# LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, +# DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY +# THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT +# (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE +# OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. +# +# Bazel Build for Google C++ Testing Framework(Google Test) + +load("@rules_cc//cc:defs.bzl", "cc_library", "cc_test") + +package(default_visibility = ["//visibility:public"]) + +licenses(["notice"]) + +exports_files(["LICENSE"]) + +config_setting( + name = "windows", + constraint_values = ["@platforms//os:windows"], +) + +config_setting( + name = "msvc_compiler", + flag_values = { + "@bazel_tools//tools/cpp:compiler": "msvc-cl", + }, + visibility = [":__subpackages__"], +) + +config_setting( + name = "has_absl", + values = {"define": "absl=1"}, +) + +# Library that defines the FRIEND_TEST macro. +cc_library( + name = "gtest_prod", + hdrs = ["googletest/include/gtest/gtest_prod.h"], + includes = ["googletest/include"], +) + +# Google Test including Google Mock +cc_library( + name = "gtest", + srcs = glob( + include = [ + "googletest/src/*.cc", + "googletest/src/*.h", + "googletest/include/gtest/**/*.h", + "googlemock/src/*.cc", + "googlemock/include/gmock/**/*.h", + ], + exclude = [ + "googletest/src/gtest-all.cc", + "googletest/src/gtest_main.cc", + "googlemock/src/gmock-all.cc", + "googlemock/src/gmock_main.cc", + ], + ), + hdrs = glob([ + "googletest/include/gtest/*.h", + "googlemock/include/gmock/*.h", + ]), + copts = select({ + ":windows": [], + "//conditions:default": ["-pthread"], + }), + defines = select({ + ":has_absl": ["GTEST_HAS_ABSL=1"], + "//conditions:default": [], + }), + features = select({ + ":windows": ["windows_export_all_symbols"], + "//conditions:default": [], + }), + includes = [ + "googlemock", + "googlemock/include", + "googletest", + "googletest/include", + ], + linkopts = select({ + ":windows": [], + "//conditions:default": ["-pthread"], + }), + deps = select({ + ":has_absl": [ + "@com_google_absl//absl/debugging:failure_signal_handler", + "@com_google_absl//absl/debugging:stacktrace", + "@com_google_absl//absl/debugging:symbolize", + "@com_google_absl//absl/strings", + "@com_google_absl//absl/types:any", + "@com_google_absl//absl/types:optional", + "@com_google_absl//absl/types:variant", + ], + "//conditions:default": [], + }), +) + +cc_library( + name = "gtest_main", + srcs = ["googlemock/src/gmock_main.cc"], + features = select({ + ":windows": ["windows_export_all_symbols"], + "//conditions:default": [], + }), + deps = [":gtest"], +) + +# The following rules build samples of how to use gTest. +cc_library( + name = "gtest_sample_lib", + srcs = [ + "googletest/samples/sample1.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample2.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample4.cc", + ], + hdrs = [ + "googletest/samples/prime_tables.h", + "googletest/samples/sample1.h", + "googletest/samples/sample2.h", + "googletest/samples/sample3-inl.h", + "googletest/samples/sample4.h", + ], + features = select({ + ":windows": ["windows_export_all_symbols"], + "//conditions:default": [], + }), +) + +cc_test( + name = "gtest_samples", + size = "small", + # All Samples except: + # sample9 (main) + # sample10 (main and takes a command line option and needs to be separate) + srcs = [ + "googletest/samples/sample1_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample2_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample3_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample4_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample6_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample7_unittest.cc", + "googletest/samples/sample8_unittest.cc", + ], + linkstatic = 0, + deps = [ + "gtest_sample_lib", + ":gtest_main", + ], +) + +cc_test( + name = "sample9_unittest", + size = "small", + srcs = ["googletest/samples/sample9_unittest.cc"], + deps = [":gtest"], +) + +cc_test( + name = "sample10_unittest", + size = "small", + srcs = ["googletest/samples/sample10_unittest.cc"], + deps = [":gtest"], +) diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CMakeLists.txt b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CMakeLists.txt index 8d2b552..ea81ab1 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CMakeLists.txt @@ -1,16 +1,32 @@ -cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.6.2) +# Note: CMake support is community-based. The maintainers do not use CMake +# internally. -project( googletest-distribution ) +cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.12) + +if (POLICY CMP0048) + cmake_policy(SET CMP0048 NEW) +endif (POLICY CMP0048) + +project(googletest-distribution) +set(GOOGLETEST_VERSION 1.11.0) + +if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_GREATER "3.0.2") + if(NOT CYGWIN AND NOT MSYS AND NOT ${CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME} STREQUAL QNX) + set(CMAKE_CXX_EXTENSIONS OFF) + endif() +endif() enable_testing() -option(BUILD_GTEST "Builds the googletest subproject" OFF) +include(CMakeDependentOption) +include(GNUInstallDirs) #Note that googlemock target already builds googletest option(BUILD_GMOCK "Builds the googlemock subproject" ON) +option(INSTALL_GTEST "Enable installation of googletest. (Projects embedding googletest may want to turn this OFF.)" ON) if(BUILD_GMOCK) add_subdirectory( googlemock ) -elseif(BUILD_GTEST) +else() add_subdirectory( googletest ) endif() diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTING.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTING.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da45e44 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +# How to become a contributor and submit your own code + +## Contributor License Agreements + +We'd love to accept your patches! Before we can take them, we have to jump a +couple of legal hurdles. + +Please fill out either the individual or corporate Contributor License Agreement +(CLA). + +* If you are an individual writing original source code and you're sure you + own the intellectual property, then you'll need to sign an + [individual CLA](https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual). +* If you work for a company that wants to allow you to contribute your work, + then you'll need to sign a + [corporate CLA](https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/corporate). + +Follow either of the two links above to access the appropriate CLA and +instructions for how to sign and return it. Once we receive it, we'll be able to +accept your pull requests. + +## Are you a Googler? + +If you are a Googler, please make an attempt to submit an internal change rather +than a GitHub Pull Request. If you are not able to submit an internal change a +PR is acceptable as an alternative. + +## Contributing A Patch + +1. Submit an issue describing your proposed change to the + [issue tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues). +2. Please don't mix more than one logical change per submittal, because it + makes the history hard to follow. If you want to make a change that doesn't + have a corresponding issue in the issue tracker, please create one. +3. Also, coordinate with team members that are listed on the issue in question. + This ensures that work isn't being duplicated and communicating your plan + early also generally leads to better patches. +4. If your proposed change is accepted, and you haven't already done so, sign a + Contributor License Agreement (see details above). +5. Fork the desired repo, develop and test your code changes. +6. Ensure that your code adheres to the existing style in the sample to which + you are contributing. +7. Ensure that your code has an appropriate set of unit tests which all pass. +8. Submit a pull request. + +## The Google Test and Google Mock Communities + +The Google Test community exists primarily through the +[discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googletestframework) and the +GitHub repository. Likewise, the Google Mock community exists primarily through +their own [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock). You are +definitely encouraged to contribute to the discussion and you can also help us +to keep the effectiveness of the group high by following and promoting the +guidelines listed here. + +### Please Be Friendly + +Showing courtesy and respect to others is a vital part of the Google culture, +and we strongly encourage everyone participating in Google Test development to +join us in accepting nothing less. Of course, being courteous is not the same as +failing to constructively disagree with each other, but it does mean that we +should be respectful of each other when enumerating the 42 technical reasons +that a particular proposal may not be the best choice. There's never a reason to +be antagonistic or dismissive toward anyone who is sincerely trying to +contribute to a discussion. + +Sure, C++ testing is serious business and all that, but it's also a lot of fun. +Let's keep it that way. Let's strive to be one of the friendliest communities in +all of open source. + +As always, discuss Google Test in the official GoogleTest discussion group. You +don't have to actually submit code in order to sign up. Your participation +itself is a valuable contribution. + +## Style + +To keep the source consistent, readable, diffable and easy to merge, we use a +fairly rigid coding style, as defined by the +[google-styleguide](https://github.com/google/styleguide) project. All patches +will be expected to conform to the style outlined +[here](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html). Use +[.clang-format](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/.clang-format) +to check your formatting. + +## Requirements for Contributors + +If you plan to contribute a patch, you need to build Google Test, Google Mock, +and their own tests from a git checkout, which has further requirements: + +* [Python](https://www.python.org/) v2.3 or newer (for running some of the + tests and re-generating certain source files from templates) +* [CMake](https://cmake.org/) v2.8.12 or newer + +## Developing Google Test and Google Mock + +This section discusses how to make your own changes to the Google Test project. + +### Testing Google Test and Google Mock Themselves + +To make sure your changes work as intended and don't break existing +functionality, you'll want to compile and run Google Test and GoogleMock's own +tests. For that you can use CMake: + + mkdir mybuild + cd mybuild + cmake -Dgtest_build_tests=ON -Dgmock_build_tests=ON ${GTEST_REPO_DIR} + +To choose between building only Google Test or Google Mock, you may modify your +cmake command to be one of each + + cmake -Dgtest_build_tests=ON ${GTEST_DIR} # sets up Google Test tests + cmake -Dgmock_build_tests=ON ${GMOCK_DIR} # sets up Google Mock tests + +Make sure you have Python installed, as some of Google Test's tests are written +in Python. If the cmake command complains about not being able to find Python +(`Could NOT find PythonInterp (missing: PYTHON_EXECUTABLE)`), try telling it +explicitly where your Python executable can be found: + + cmake -DPYTHON_EXECUTABLE=path/to/python ... + +Next, you can build Google Test and / or Google Mock and all desired tests. On +\*nix, this is usually done by + + make + +To run the tests, do + + make test + +All tests should pass. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS similarity index 61% rename from rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS rename to rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS index feae2fc..76db0b4 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/CONTRIBUTORS @@ -5,33 +5,59 @@ Ajay Joshi Balázs Dán +Benoit Sigoure Bharat Mediratta +Bogdan Piloca Chandler Carruth Chris Prince Chris Taylor Dan Egnor +Dave MacLachlan +David Anderson +Dean Sturtevant Eric Roman +Gene Volovich Hady Zalek +Hal Burch Jeffrey Yasskin +Jim Keller +Joe Walnes +Jon Wray Jói Sigurðsson Keir Mierle Keith Ray Kenton Varda +Kostya Serebryany +Krystian Kuzniarek +Lev Makhlis Manuel Klimek +Mario Tanev +Mark Paskin Markus Heule +Matthew Simmons Mika Raento +Mike Bland Miklós Fazekas +Neal Norwitz +Nermin Ozkiranartli +Owen Carlsen +Paneendra Ba Pasi Valminen Patrick Hanna Patrick Riley +Paul Menage Peter Kaminski +Piotr Kaminski Preston Jackson Rainer Klaffenboeck Russ Cox Russ Rufer Sean Mcafee Sigurður Ásgeirsson +Sverre Sundsdal +Takeshi Yoshino Tracy Bialik Vadim Berman Vlad Losev +Wolfgang Klier Zhanyong Wan diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/LICENSE b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/LICENSE similarity index 100% rename from rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/LICENSE rename to rhubarb/lib/googletest/LICENSE diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/README.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/README.md index 22df99b..7d872a5 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/README.md +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/README.md @@ -1,138 +1,140 @@ +# GoogleTest -# Google Test # +### Announcements -[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/google/googletest.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/google/googletest) +#### Live at Head -Welcome to **Google Test**, Google's C++ test framework! +GoogleTest now follows the +[Abseil Live at Head philosophy](https://abseil.io/about/philosophy#upgrade-support). +We recommend using the latest commit in the `master` branch in your projects. -This repository is a merger of the formerly separate GoogleTest and -GoogleMock projects. These were so closely related that it makes sense to -maintain and release them together. +#### Documentation Updates -Please see the project page above for more information as well as the -mailing list for questions, discussions, and development. There is -also an IRC channel on OFTC (irc.oftc.net) #gtest available. Please -join us! +Our documentation is now live on GitHub Pages at +https://google.github.io/googletest/. We recommend browsing the documentation on +GitHub Pages rather than directly in the repository. -**Google Mock** is an extension to Google Test for writing and using C++ mock -classes. See the separate [Google Mock documentation](googlemock/README.md). +#### Release 1.10.x -More detailed documentation for googletest (including build instructions) are -in its interior [googletest/README.md](googletest/README.md) file. +[Release 1.10.x](https://github.com/google/googletest/releases/tag/release-1.10.0) +is now available. -## Features ## +#### Coming Soon - * An [XUnit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUnit) test framework. - * Test discovery. - * A rich set of assertions. - * User-defined assertions. - * Death tests. - * Fatal and non-fatal failures. - * Value-parameterized tests. - * Type-parameterized tests. - * Various options for running the tests. - * XML test report generation. +* We are planning to take a dependency on + [Abseil](https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp). +* More documentation improvements are planned. -## Platforms ## +## Welcome to **GoogleTest**, Google's C++ test framework! -Google test has been used on a variety of platforms: +This repository is a merger of the formerly separate GoogleTest and GoogleMock +projects. These were so closely related that it makes sense to maintain and +release them together. - * Linux - * Mac OS X - * Windows - * Cygwin - * MinGW - * Windows Mobile - * Symbian +### Getting Started -## Who Is Using Google Test? ## +See the [GoogleTest User's Guide](https://google.github.io/googletest/) for +documentation. We recommend starting with the +[GoogleTest Primer](https://google.github.io/googletest/primer.html). -In addition to many internal projects at Google, Google Test is also used by -the following notable projects: +More information about building GoogleTest can be found at +[googletest/README.md](googletest/README.md). - * The [Chromium projects](http://www.chromium.org/) (behind the Chrome - browser and Chrome OS). - * The [LLVM](http://llvm.org/) compiler. - * [Protocol Buffers](https://github.com/google/protobuf), Google's data +## Features + +* An [xUnit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUnit) test framework. +* Test discovery. +* A rich set of assertions. +* User-defined assertions. +* Death tests. +* Fatal and non-fatal failures. +* Value-parameterized tests. +* Type-parameterized tests. +* Various options for running the tests. +* XML test report generation. + +## Supported Platforms + +GoogleTest requires a codebase and compiler compliant with the C++11 standard or +newer. + +The GoogleTest code is officially supported on the following platforms. +Operating systems or tools not listed below are community-supported. For +community-supported platforms, patches that do not complicate the code may be +considered. + +If you notice any problems on your platform, please file an issue on the +[GoogleTest GitHub Issue Tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues). +Pull requests containing fixes are welcome! + +### Operating Systems + +* Linux +* macOS +* Windows + +### Compilers + +* gcc 5.0+ +* clang 5.0+ +* MSVC 2015+ + +**macOS users:** Xcode 9.3+ provides clang 5.0+. + +### Build Systems + +* [Bazel](https://bazel.build/) +* [CMake](https://cmake.org/) + +**Note:** Bazel is the build system used by the team internally and in tests. +CMake is supported on a best-effort basis and by the community. + +## Who Is Using GoogleTest? + +In addition to many internal projects at Google, GoogleTest is also used by the +following notable projects: + +* The [Chromium projects](http://www.chromium.org/) (behind the Chrome browser + and Chrome OS). +* The [LLVM](http://llvm.org/) compiler. +* [Protocol Buffers](https://github.com/google/protobuf), Google's data interchange format. - * The [OpenCV](http://opencv.org/) computer vision library. +* The [OpenCV](http://opencv.org/) computer vision library. -## Related Open Source Projects ## +## Related Open Source Projects -[Google Test UI](https://github.com/ospector/gtest-gbar) is test runner that runs -your test binary, allows you to track its progress via a progress bar, and +[GTest Runner](https://github.com/nholthaus/gtest-runner) is a Qt5 based +automated test-runner and Graphical User Interface with powerful features for +Windows and Linux platforms. + +[GoogleTest UI](https://github.com/ospector/gtest-gbar) is a test runner that +runs your test binary, allows you to track its progress via a progress bar, and displays a list of test failures. Clicking on one shows failure text. Google Test UI is written in C#. [GTest TAP Listener](https://github.com/kinow/gtest-tap-listener) is an event -listener for Google Test that implements the +listener for GoogleTest that implements the [TAP protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Anything_Protocol) for test result output. If your test runner understands TAP, you may find it useful. -## Requirements ## +[gtest-parallel](https://github.com/google/gtest-parallel) is a test runner that +runs tests from your binary in parallel to provide significant speed-up. -Google Test is designed to have fairly minimal requirements to build -and use with your projects, but there are some. Currently, we support -Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, and Cygwin. We will also make our best -effort to support other platforms (e.g. Solaris, AIX, and z/OS). -However, since core members of the Google Test project have no access -to these platforms, Google Test may have outstanding issues there. If -you notice any problems on your platform, please notify -. Patches for fixing them are -even more welcome! +[GoogleTest Adapter](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=DavidSchuldenfrei.gtest-adapter) +is a VS Code extension allowing to view GoogleTest in a tree view, and run/debug +your tests. -### Linux Requirements ### +[C++ TestMate](https://github.com/matepek/vscode-catch2-test-adapter) is a VS +Code extension allowing to view GoogleTest in a tree view, and run/debug your +tests. -These are the base requirements to build and use Google Test from a source -package (as described below): +[Cornichon](https://pypi.org/project/cornichon/) is a small Gherkin DSL parser +that generates stub code for GoogleTest. - * GNU-compatible Make or gmake - * POSIX-standard shell - * POSIX(-2) Regular Expressions (regex.h) - * A C++98-standard-compliant compiler +## Contributing Changes -### Windows Requirements ### - - * Microsoft Visual C++ v7.1 or newer - -### Cygwin Requirements ### - - * Cygwin v1.5.25-14 or newer - -### Mac OS X Requirements ### - - * Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger or newer - * XCode Developer Tools - -### Requirements for Contributors ### - -We welcome patches. If you plan to contribute a patch, you need to -build Google Test and its own tests from a git checkout (described -below), which has further requirements: - - * [Python](https://www.python.org/) v2.3 or newer (for running some of - the tests and re-generating certain source files from templates) - * [CMake](https://cmake.org/) v2.6.4 or newer - -## Regenerating Source Files ## - -Some of Google Test's source files are generated from templates (not -in the C++ sense) using a script. -For example, the -file include/gtest/internal/gtest-type-util.h.pump is used to generate -gtest-type-util.h in the same directory. - -You don't need to worry about regenerating the source files -unless you need to modify them. You would then modify the -corresponding `.pump` files and run the '[pump.py](googletest/scripts/pump.py)' -generator script. See the [Pump Manual](googletest/docs/PumpManual.md). - -### Contributing Code ### - -We welcome patches. Please read the -[Developer's Guide](googletest/docs/DevGuide.md) -for how you can contribute. In particular, make sure you have signed -the Contributor License Agreement, or we won't be able to accept the -patch. +Please read +[`CONTRIBUTING.md`](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) +for details on how to contribute to this project. Happy testing! diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/WORKSPACE b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/WORKSPACE new file mode 100644 index 0000000..614f557 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/WORKSPACE @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +workspace(name = "com_google_googletest") + +load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") + +http_archive( + name = "com_google_absl", + urls = ["https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/archive/7971fb358ae376e016d2d4fc9327aad95659b25e.zip"], # 2021-05-20T02:59:16Z + strip_prefix = "abseil-cpp-7971fb358ae376e016d2d4fc9327aad95659b25e", + sha256 = "aeba534f7307e36fe084b452299e49b97420667a8d28102cf9a0daeed340b859", +) + +http_archive( + name = "rules_cc", + urls = ["https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_cc/archive/68cb652a71e7e7e2858c50593e5a9e3b94e5b9a9.zip"], # 2021-05-14T14:51:14Z + strip_prefix = "rules_cc-68cb652a71e7e7e2858c50593e5a9e3b94e5b9a9", + sha256 = "1e19e9a3bc3d4ee91d7fcad00653485ee6c798efbbf9588d40b34cbfbded143d", +) + +http_archive( + name = "rules_python", + urls = ["https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/archive/ed6cc8f2c3692a6a7f013ff8bc185ba77eb9b4d2.zip"], # 2021-05-17T00:24:16Z + strip_prefix = "rules_python-ed6cc8f2c3692a6a7f013ff8bc185ba77eb9b4d2", + sha256 = "98b3c592faea9636ac8444bfd9de7f3fb4c60590932d6e6ac5946e3f8dbd5ff6", +) diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/linux-presubmit.sh b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/linux-presubmit.sh new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6bea1cd --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/linux-presubmit.sh @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Copyright 2020, Google Inc. +# All rights reserved. +# +# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without +# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are +# met: +# +# * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. +# * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above +# copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer +# in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the +# distribution. +# * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its +# contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from +# this software without specific prior written permission. +# +# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS +# "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT +# LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR +# A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT +# OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, +# SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT +# LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, +# DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY +# THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT +# (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE +# OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. + +set -euox pipefail + +readonly LINUX_LATEST_CONTAINER="gcr.io/google.com/absl-177019/linux_hybrid-latest:20210525" +readonly LINUX_GCC_FLOOR_CONTAINER="gcr.io/google.com/absl-177019/linux_gcc-floor:20201015" + +if [[ -z ${GTEST_ROOT:-} ]]; then + GTEST_ROOT="$(realpath $(dirname ${0})/..)" +fi + +if [[ -z ${STD:-} ]]; then + STD="c++11 c++14 c++17 c++20" +fi + +# Test the CMake build +for cc in /usr/local/bin/gcc /opt/llvm/clang/bin/clang; do + for cmake_off_on in OFF ON; do + time docker run \ + --volume="${GTEST_ROOT}:/src:ro" \ + --tmpfs="/build:exec" \ + --workdir="/build" \ + --rm \ + --env="CC=${cc}" \ + --env="CXX_FLAGS=\"-Werror -Wdeprecated\"" \ + ${LINUX_LATEST_CONTAINER} \ + /bin/bash -c " + cmake /src \ + -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=11 \ + -Dgtest_build_samples=ON \ + -Dgtest_build_tests=ON \ + -Dgmock_build_tests=ON \ + -Dcxx_no_exception=${cmake_off_on} \ + -Dcxx_no_rtti=${cmake_off_on} && \ + make -j$(nproc) && \ + ctest -j$(nproc) --output-on-failure" + done +done + +# Do one test with an older version of GCC +time docker run \ + --volume="${GTEST_ROOT}:/src:ro" \ + --workdir="/src" \ + --rm \ + --env="CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc" \ + ${LINUX_GCC_FLOOR_CONTAINER} \ + /usr/local/bin/bazel test ... \ + --copt="-Wall" \ + --copt="-Werror" \ + --copt="-Wno-error=pragmas" \ + --keep_going \ + --show_timestamps \ + --test_output=errors + +# Test GCC +for std in ${STD}; do + for absl in 0 1; do + time docker run \ + --volume="${GTEST_ROOT}:/src:ro" \ + --workdir="/src" \ + --rm \ + --env="CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc" \ + --env="BAZEL_CXXOPTS=-std=${std}" \ + ${LINUX_LATEST_CONTAINER} \ + /usr/local/bin/bazel test ... \ + --copt="-Wall" \ + --copt="-Werror" \ + --define="absl=${absl}" \ + --distdir="/bazel-distdir" \ + --keep_going \ + --show_timestamps \ + --test_output=errors + done +done + +# Test Clang +for std in ${STD}; do + for absl in 0 1; do + time docker run \ + --volume="${GTEST_ROOT}:/src:ro" \ + --workdir="/src" \ + --rm \ + --env="CC=/opt/llvm/clang/bin/clang" \ + --env="BAZEL_CXXOPTS=-std=${std}" \ + ${LINUX_LATEST_CONTAINER} \ + /usr/local/bin/bazel test ... \ + --copt="--gcc-toolchain=/usr/local" \ + --copt="-Wall" \ + --copt="-Werror" \ + --define="absl=${absl}" \ + --distdir="/bazel-distdir" \ + --keep_going \ + --linkopt="--gcc-toolchain=/usr/local" \ + --show_timestamps \ + --test_output=errors + done +done diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Scripts/runtests.sh b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/macos-presubmit.sh similarity index 58% rename from rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Scripts/runtests.sh rename to rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/macos-presubmit.sh index 3fc229f..d6423fa 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googletest/xcode/Scripts/runtests.sh +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/ci/macos-presubmit.sh @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ #!/bin/bash # -# Copyright 2008, Google Inc. +# Copyright 2020, Google Inc. # All rights reserved. # # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without @@ -29,37 +29,45 @@ # (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE # OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -# Executes the samples and tests for the Google Test Framework. +set -euox pipefail -# Help the dynamic linker find the path to the libraries. -export DYLD_FRAMEWORK_PATH=$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR -export DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR +if [[ -z ${GTEST_ROOT:-} ]]; then + GTEST_ROOT="$(realpath $(dirname ${0})/..)" +fi -# Create some executables. -test_executables=("$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR/gtest_unittest-framework" - "$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR/gtest_unittest" - "$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR/sample1_unittest-framework" - "$BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR/sample1_unittest-static") - -# Now execute each one in turn keeping track of how many succeeded and failed. -succeeded=0 -failed=0 -failed_list=() -for test in ${test_executables[*]}; do - "$test" - result=$? - if [ $result -eq 0 ]; then - succeeded=$(( $succeeded + 1 )) - else - failed=$(( failed + 1 )) - failed_list="$failed_list $test" - fi +# Test the CMake build +for cmake_off_on in OFF ON; do + BUILD_DIR=$(mktemp -d build_dir.XXXXXXXX) + cd ${BUILD_DIR} + time cmake ${GTEST_ROOT} \ + -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=11 \ + -Dgtest_build_samples=ON \ + -Dgtest_build_tests=ON \ + -Dgmock_build_tests=ON \ + -Dcxx_no_exception=${cmake_off_on} \ + -Dcxx_no_rtti=${cmake_off_on} + time make + time ctest -j$(nproc) --output-on-failure done -# Report the successes and failures to the console. -echo "Tests complete with $succeeded successes and $failed failures." -if [ $failed -ne 0 ]; then - echo "The following tests failed:" - echo $failed_list +# Test the Bazel build + +# If we are running on Kokoro, check for a versioned Bazel binary. +KOKORO_GFILE_BAZEL_BIN="bazel-3.7.0-darwin-x86_64" +if [[ ${KOKORO_GFILE_DIR:-} ]] && [[ -f ${KOKORO_GFILE_DIR}/${KOKORO_GFILE_BAZEL_BIN} ]]; then + BAZEL_BIN="${KOKORO_GFILE_DIR}/${KOKORO_GFILE_BAZEL_BIN}" + chmod +x ${BAZEL_BIN} +else + BAZEL_BIN="bazel" fi -exit $failed + +cd ${GTEST_ROOT} +for absl in 0 1; do + ${BAZEL_BIN} test ... \ + --copt="-Wall" \ + --copt="-Werror" \ + --define="absl=${absl}" \ + --keep_going \ + --show_timestamps \ + --test_output=errors +done diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_config.yml b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_config.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d12867e --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_config.yml @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +title: GoogleTest diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_data/navigation.yml b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_data/navigation.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f33327 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_data/navigation.yml @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +nav: +- section: "Get Started" + items: + - title: "Supported Platforms" + url: "/platforms.html" + - title: "Quickstart: Bazel" + url: "/quickstart-bazel.html" + - title: "Quickstart: CMake" + url: "/quickstart-cmake.html" +- section: "Guides" + items: + - title: "GoogleTest Primer" + url: "/primer.html" + - title: "Advanced Topics" + url: "/advanced.html" + - title: "Mocking for Dummies" + url: "/gmock_for_dummies.html" + - title: "Mocking Cookbook" + url: "/gmock_cook_book.html" + - title: "Mocking Cheat Sheet" + url: "/gmock_cheat_sheet.html" +- section: "References" + items: + - title: "Testing Reference" + url: "/reference/testing.html" + - title: "Mocking Reference" + url: "/reference/mocking.html" + - title: "Assertions" + url: "/reference/assertions.html" + - title: "Matchers" + url: "/reference/matchers.html" + - title: "Actions" + url: "/reference/actions.html" + - title: "Testing FAQ" + url: "/faq.html" + - title: "Mocking FAQ" + url: "/gmock_faq.html" + - title: "Code Samples" + url: "/samples.html" + - title: "Using pkg-config" + url: "/pkgconfig.html" + - title: "Community Documentation" + url: "/community_created_documentation.html" diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_layouts/default.html b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_layouts/default.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dcb42d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_layouts/default.html @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ + + + + + + + +{% seo %} + + + + + +
+
+

{{ site.title | default: "Documentation" }}

+
+ + + +
+
+
+ {{ content }} +
+
+ GoogleTest · + GitHub Repository · + License · + Privacy Policy +
+
+ + + + diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_sass/main.scss b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_sass/main.scss new file mode 100644 index 0000000..92edc87 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/_sass/main.scss @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +// Styles for GoogleTest docs website on GitHub Pages. +// Color variables are defined in +// https://github.com/pages-themes/primer/tree/master/_sass/primer-support/lib/variables + +$sidebar-width: 260px; + +body { + display: flex; + margin: 0; +} + +.sidebar { + background: $black; + color: $text-white; + flex-shrink: 0; + height: 100vh; + overflow: auto; + position: sticky; + top: 0; + width: $sidebar-width; +} + +.sidebar h1 { + font-size: 1.5em; +} + +.sidebar h2 { + color: $gray-light; + font-size: 0.8em; + font-weight: normal; + margin-bottom: 0.8em; + padding-left: 2.5em; + text-transform: uppercase; +} + +.sidebar .header { + background: $black; + padding: 2em; + position: sticky; + top: 0; + width: 100%; +} + +.sidebar .header a { + color: $text-white; + text-decoration: none; +} + +.sidebar .nav-toggle { + display: none; +} + +.sidebar .expander { + cursor: pointer; + display: none; + height: 3em; + position: absolute; + right: 1em; + top: 1.5em; + width: 3em; +} + +.sidebar .expander .arrow { + border: solid $white; + border-width: 0 3px 3px 0; + display: block; + height: 0.7em; + margin: 1em auto; + transform: rotate(45deg); + transition: transform 0.5s; + width: 0.7em; +} + +.sidebar nav { + width: 100%; +} + +.sidebar nav ul { + list-style-type: none; + margin-bottom: 1em; + padding: 0; + + &:last-child { + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + + a { + text-decoration: none; + } + + li { + color: $text-white; + padding-left: 2em; + text-decoration: none; + } + + li.active { + background: $border-gray-darker; + font-weight: bold; + } + + li:hover { + background: $border-gray-darker; + } +} + +.main { + background-color: $bg-gray; + width: calc(100% - #{$sidebar-width}); +} + +.main .main-inner { + background-color: $white; + padding: 2em; +} + +.main .footer { + margin: 0; + padding: 2em; +} + +.main table th { + text-align: left; +} + +.main .callout { + border-left: 0.25em solid $white; + padding: 1em; + + a { + text-decoration: underline; + } + + &.important { + background-color: $bg-yellow-light; + border-color: $bg-yellow; + color: $black; + } + + &.note { + background-color: $bg-blue-light; + border-color: $text-blue; + color: $text-blue; + } + + &.tip { + background-color: $green-000; + border-color: $green-700; + color: $green-700; + } + + &.warning { + background-color: $red-000; + border-color: $text-red; + color: $text-red; + } +} + +.main .good pre { + background-color: $bg-green-light; +} + +.main .bad pre { + background-color: $red-000; +} + +@media all and (max-width: 768px) { + body { + flex-direction: column; + } + + .sidebar { + height: auto; + position: relative; + width: 100%; + } + + .sidebar .expander { + display: block; + } + + .sidebar nav { + height: 0; + overflow: hidden; + } + + .sidebar .nav-toggle:checked { + & ~ nav { + height: auto; + } + + & + .expander .arrow { + transform: rotate(-135deg); + } + } + + .main { + width: 100%; + } +} diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/advanced.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/advanced.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8dff5ba --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/advanced.md @@ -0,0 +1,2318 @@ +# Advanced googletest Topics + +## Introduction + +Now that you have read the [googletest Primer](primer.md) and learned how to +write tests using googletest, it's time to learn some new tricks. This document +will show you more assertions as well as how to construct complex failure +messages, propagate fatal failures, reuse and speed up your test fixtures, and +use various flags with your tests. + +## More Assertions + +This section covers some less frequently used, but still significant, +assertions. + +### Explicit Success and Failure + +See [Explicit Success and Failure](reference/assertions.md#success-failure) in +the Assertions Reference. + +### Exception Assertions + +See [Exception Assertions](reference/assertions.md#exceptions) in the Assertions +Reference. + +### Predicate Assertions for Better Error Messages + +Even though googletest has a rich set of assertions, they can never be complete, +as it's impossible (nor a good idea) to anticipate all scenarios a user might +run into. Therefore, sometimes a user has to use `EXPECT_TRUE()` to check a +complex expression, for lack of a better macro. This has the problem of not +showing you the values of the parts of the expression, making it hard to +understand what went wrong. As a workaround, some users choose to construct the +failure message by themselves, streaming it into `EXPECT_TRUE()`. However, this +is awkward especially when the expression has side-effects or is expensive to +evaluate. + +googletest gives you three different options to solve this problem: + +#### Using an Existing Boolean Function + +If you already have a function or functor that returns `bool` (or a type that +can be implicitly converted to `bool`), you can use it in a *predicate +assertion* to get the function arguments printed for free. See +[`EXPECT_PRED*`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED) in the Assertions +Reference for details. + +#### Using a Function That Returns an AssertionResult + +While `EXPECT_PRED*()` and friends are handy for a quick job, the syntax is not +satisfactory: you have to use different macros for different arities, and it +feels more like Lisp than C++. The `::testing::AssertionResult` class solves +this problem. + +An `AssertionResult` object represents the result of an assertion (whether it's +a success or a failure, and an associated message). You can create an +`AssertionResult` using one of these factory functions: + +```c++ +namespace testing { + +// Returns an AssertionResult object to indicate that an assertion has +// succeeded. +AssertionResult AssertionSuccess(); + +// Returns an AssertionResult object to indicate that an assertion has +// failed. +AssertionResult AssertionFailure(); + +} +``` + +You can then use the `<<` operator to stream messages to the `AssertionResult` +object. + +To provide more readable messages in Boolean assertions (e.g. `EXPECT_TRUE()`), +write a predicate function that returns `AssertionResult` instead of `bool`. For +example, if you define `IsEven()` as: + +```c++ +testing::AssertionResult IsEven(int n) { + if ((n % 2) == 0) + return testing::AssertionSuccess(); + else + return testing::AssertionFailure() << n << " is odd"; +} +``` + +instead of: + +```c++ +bool IsEven(int n) { + return (n % 2) == 0; +} +``` + +the failed assertion `EXPECT_TRUE(IsEven(Fib(4)))` will print: + +```none +Value of: IsEven(Fib(4)) + Actual: false (3 is odd) +Expected: true +``` + +instead of a more opaque + +```none +Value of: IsEven(Fib(4)) + Actual: false +Expected: true +``` + +If you want informative messages in `EXPECT_FALSE` and `ASSERT_FALSE` as well +(one third of Boolean assertions in the Google code base are negative ones), and +are fine with making the predicate slower in the success case, you can supply a +success message: + +```c++ +testing::AssertionResult IsEven(int n) { + if ((n % 2) == 0) + return testing::AssertionSuccess() << n << " is even"; + else + return testing::AssertionFailure() << n << " is odd"; +} +``` + +Then the statement `EXPECT_FALSE(IsEven(Fib(6)))` will print + +```none + Value of: IsEven(Fib(6)) + Actual: true (8 is even) + Expected: false +``` + +#### Using a Predicate-Formatter + +If you find the default message generated by +[`EXPECT_PRED*`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED) and +[`EXPECT_TRUE`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_TRUE) unsatisfactory, or some +arguments to your predicate do not support streaming to `ostream`, you can +instead use *predicate-formatter assertions* to *fully* customize how the +message is formatted. See +[`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT*`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT) in the +Assertions Reference for details. + +### Floating-Point Comparison + +See [Floating-Point Comparison](reference/assertions.md#floating-point) in the +Assertions Reference. + +#### Floating-Point Predicate-Format Functions + +Some floating-point operations are useful, but not that often used. In order to +avoid an explosion of new macros, we provide them as predicate-format functions +that can be used in the predicate assertion macro +[`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT), for +example: + +```c++ +EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(testing::FloatLE, val1, val2); +EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(testing::DoubleLE, val1, val2); +``` + +The above code verifies that `val1` is less than, or approximately equal to, +`val2`. + +### Asserting Using gMock Matchers + +See [`EXPECT_THAT`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_THAT) in the Assertions +Reference. + +### More String Assertions + +(Please read the [previous](#asserting-using-gmock-matchers) section first if +you haven't.) + +You can use the gMock [string matchers](reference/matchers.md#string-matchers) +with [`EXPECT_THAT`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_THAT) to do more string +comparison tricks (sub-string, prefix, suffix, regular expression, and etc). For +example, + +```c++ +using ::testing::HasSubstr; +using ::testing::MatchesRegex; +... + ASSERT_THAT(foo_string, HasSubstr("needle")); + EXPECT_THAT(bar_string, MatchesRegex("\\w*\\d+")); +``` + +### Windows HRESULT assertions + +See [Windows HRESULT Assertions](reference/assertions.md#HRESULT) in the +Assertions Reference. + +### Type Assertions + +You can call the function + +```c++ +::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); +``` + +to assert that types `T1` and `T2` are the same. The function does nothing if +the assertion is satisfied. If the types are different, the function call will +fail to compile, the compiler error message will say that +`T1 and T2 are not the same type` and most likely (depending on the compiler) +show you the actual values of `T1` and `T2`. This is mainly useful inside +template code. + +**Caveat**: When used inside a member function of a class template or a function +template, `StaticAssertTypeEq()` is effective only if the function is +instantiated. For example, given: + +```c++ +template class Foo { + public: + void Bar() { testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); } +}; +``` + +the code: + +```c++ +void Test1() { Foo foo; } +``` + +will not generate a compiler error, as `Foo::Bar()` is never actually +instantiated. Instead, you need: + +```c++ +void Test2() { Foo foo; foo.Bar(); } +``` + +to cause a compiler error. + +### Assertion Placement + +You can use assertions in any C++ function. In particular, it doesn't have to be +a method of the test fixture class. The one constraint is that assertions that +generate a fatal failure (`FAIL*` and `ASSERT_*`) can only be used in +void-returning functions. This is a consequence of Google's not using +exceptions. By placing it in a non-void function you'll get a confusing compile +error like `"error: void value not ignored as it ought to be"` or `"cannot +initialize return object of type 'bool' with an rvalue of type 'void'"` or +`"error: no viable conversion from 'void' to 'string'"`. + +If you need to use fatal assertions in a function that returns non-void, one +option is to make the function return the value in an out parameter instead. For +example, you can rewrite `T2 Foo(T1 x)` to `void Foo(T1 x, T2* result)`. You +need to make sure that `*result` contains some sensible value even when the +function returns prematurely. As the function now returns `void`, you can use +any assertion inside of it. + +If changing the function's type is not an option, you should just use assertions +that generate non-fatal failures, such as `ADD_FAILURE*` and `EXPECT_*`. + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: Constructors and destructors are not considered void-returning functions, +according to the C++ language specification, and so you may not use fatal +assertions in them; you'll get a compilation error if you try. Instead, either +call `abort` and crash the entire test executable, or put the fatal assertion in +a `SetUp`/`TearDown` function; see +[constructor/destructor vs. `SetUp`/`TearDown`](faq.md#CtorVsSetUp) + +{: .callout .warning} +WARNING: A fatal assertion in a helper function (private void-returning method) +called from a constructor or destructor does not terminate the current test, as +your intuition might suggest: it merely returns from the constructor or +destructor early, possibly leaving your object in a partially-constructed or +partially-destructed state! You almost certainly want to `abort` or use +`SetUp`/`TearDown` instead. + +## Skipping test execution + +Related to the assertions `SUCCEED()` and `FAIL()`, you can prevent further test +execution at runtime with the `GTEST_SKIP()` macro. This is useful when you need +to check for preconditions of the system under test during runtime and skip +tests in a meaningful way. + +`GTEST_SKIP()` can be used in individual test cases or in the `SetUp()` methods +of classes derived from either `::testing::Environment` or `::testing::Test`. +For example: + +```c++ +TEST(SkipTest, DoesSkip) { + GTEST_SKIP() << "Skipping single test"; + EXPECT_EQ(0, 1); // Won't fail; it won't be executed +} + +class SkipFixture : public ::testing::Test { + protected: + void SetUp() override { + GTEST_SKIP() << "Skipping all tests for this fixture"; + } +}; + +// Tests for SkipFixture won't be executed. +TEST_F(SkipFixture, SkipsOneTest) { + EXPECT_EQ(5, 7); // Won't fail +} +``` + +As with assertion macros, you can stream a custom message into `GTEST_SKIP()`. + +## Teaching googletest How to Print Your Values + +When a test assertion such as `EXPECT_EQ` fails, googletest prints the argument +values to help you debug. It does this using a user-extensible value printer. + +This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL +containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it +prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out. + +As mentioned earlier, the printer is *extensible*. That means you can teach it +to do a better job at printing your particular type than to dump the bytes. To +do that, define `<<` for your type: + +```c++ +#include + +namespace foo { + +class Bar { // We want googletest to be able to print instances of this. +... + // Create a free inline friend function. + friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Bar& bar) { + return os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os + } +}; + +// If you can't declare the function in the class it's important that the +// << operator is defined in the SAME namespace that defines Bar. C++'s look-up +// rules rely on that. +std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Bar& bar) { + return os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os +} + +} // namespace foo +``` + +Sometimes, this might not be an option: your team may consider it bad style to +have a `<<` operator for `Bar`, or `Bar` may already have a `<<` operator that +doesn't do what you want (and you cannot change it). If so, you can instead +define a `PrintTo()` function like this: + +```c++ +#include + +namespace foo { + +class Bar { + ... + friend void PrintTo(const Bar& bar, std::ostream* os) { + *os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os + } +}; + +// If you can't declare the function in the class it's important that PrintTo() +// is defined in the SAME namespace that defines Bar. C++'s look-up rules rely +// on that. +void PrintTo(const Bar& bar, std::ostream* os) { + *os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os +} + +} // namespace foo +``` + +If you have defined both `<<` and `PrintTo()`, the latter will be used when +googletest is concerned. This allows you to customize how the value appears in +googletest's output without affecting code that relies on the behavior of its +`<<` operator. + +If you want to print a value `x` using googletest's value printer yourself, just +call `::testing::PrintToString(x)`, which returns an `std::string`: + +```c++ +vector > bar_ints = GetBarIntVector(); + +EXPECT_TRUE(IsCorrectBarIntVector(bar_ints)) + << "bar_ints = " << testing::PrintToString(bar_ints); +``` + +## Death Tests + +In many applications, there are assertions that can cause application failure if +a condition is not met. These sanity checks, which ensure that the program is in +a known good state, are there to fail at the earliest possible time after some +program state is corrupted. If the assertion checks the wrong condition, then +the program may proceed in an erroneous state, which could lead to memory +corruption, security holes, or worse. Hence it is vitally important to test that +such assertion statements work as expected. + +Since these precondition checks cause the processes to die, we call such tests +_death tests_. More generally, any test that checks that a program terminates +(except by throwing an exception) in an expected fashion is also a death test. + +Note that if a piece of code throws an exception, we don't consider it "death" +for the purpose of death tests, as the caller of the code could catch the +exception and avoid the crash. If you want to verify exceptions thrown by your +code, see [Exception Assertions](#ExceptionAssertions). + +If you want to test `EXPECT_*()/ASSERT_*()` failures in your test code, see +["Catching" Failures](#catching-failures). + +### How to Write a Death Test + +GoogleTest provides assertion macros to support death tests. See +[Death Assertions](reference/assertions.md#death) in the Assertions Reference +for details. + +To write a death test, simply use one of the macros inside your test function. +For example, + +```c++ +TEST(MyDeathTest, Foo) { + // This death test uses a compound statement. + ASSERT_DEATH({ + int n = 5; + Foo(&n); + }, "Error on line .* of Foo()"); +} + +TEST(MyDeathTest, NormalExit) { + EXPECT_EXIT(NormalExit(), testing::ExitedWithCode(0), "Success"); +} + +TEST(MyDeathTest, KillProcess) { + EXPECT_EXIT(KillProcess(), testing::KilledBySignal(SIGKILL), + "Sending myself unblockable signal"); +} +``` + +verifies that: + +* calling `Foo(5)` causes the process to die with the given error message, +* calling `NormalExit()` causes the process to print `"Success"` to stderr and + exit with exit code 0, and +* calling `KillProcess()` kills the process with signal `SIGKILL`. + +The test function body may contain other assertions and statements as well, if +necessary. + +Note that a death test only cares about three things: + +1. does `statement` abort or exit the process? +2. (in the case of `ASSERT_EXIT` and `EXPECT_EXIT`) does the exit status + satisfy `predicate`? Or (in the case of `ASSERT_DEATH` and `EXPECT_DEATH`) + is the exit status non-zero? And +3. does the stderr output match `matcher`? + +In particular, if `statement` generates an `ASSERT_*` or `EXPECT_*` failure, it +will **not** cause the death test to fail, as googletest assertions don't abort +the process. + +### Death Test Naming + +{: .callout .important} +IMPORTANT: We strongly recommend you to follow the convention of naming your +**test suite** (not test) `*DeathTest` when it contains a death test, as +demonstrated in the above example. The +[Death Tests And Threads](#death-tests-and-threads) section below explains why. + +If a test fixture class is shared by normal tests and death tests, you can use +`using` or `typedef` to introduce an alias for the fixture class and avoid +duplicating its code: + +```c++ +class FooTest : public testing::Test { ... }; + +using FooDeathTest = FooTest; + +TEST_F(FooTest, DoesThis) { + // normal test +} + +TEST_F(FooDeathTest, DoesThat) { + // death test +} +``` + +### Regular Expression Syntax + +On POSIX systems (e.g. Linux, Cygwin, and Mac), googletest uses the +[POSIX extended regular expression](http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap09.html#tag_09_04) +syntax. To learn about this syntax, you may want to read this +[Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression#POSIX_Extended_Regular_Expressions). + +On Windows, googletest uses its own simple regular expression implementation. It +lacks many features. For example, we don't support union (`"x|y"`), grouping +(`"(xy)"`), brackets (`"[xy]"`), and repetition count (`"x{5,7}"`), among +others. Below is what we do support (`A` denotes a literal character, period +(`.`), or a single `\\ ` escape sequence; `x` and `y` denote regular +expressions.): + +Expression | Meaning +---------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- +`c` | matches any literal character `c` +`\\d` | matches any decimal digit +`\\D` | matches any character that's not a decimal digit +`\\f` | matches `\f` +`\\n` | matches `\n` +`\\r` | matches `\r` +`\\s` | matches any ASCII whitespace, including `\n` +`\\S` | matches any character that's not a whitespace +`\\t` | matches `\t` +`\\v` | matches `\v` +`\\w` | matches any letter, `_`, or decimal digit +`\\W` | matches any character that `\\w` doesn't match +`\\c` | matches any literal character `c`, which must be a punctuation +`.` | matches any single character except `\n` +`A?` | matches 0 or 1 occurrences of `A` +`A*` | matches 0 or many occurrences of `A` +`A+` | matches 1 or many occurrences of `A` +`^` | matches the beginning of a string (not that of each line) +`$` | matches the end of a string (not that of each line) +`xy` | matches `x` followed by `y` + +To help you determine which capability is available on your system, googletest +defines macros to govern which regular expression it is using. The macros are: +`GTEST_USES_SIMPLE_RE=1` or `GTEST_USES_POSIX_RE=1`. If you want your death +tests to work in all cases, you can either `#if` on these macros or use the more +limited syntax only. + +### How It Works + +See [Death Assertions](reference/assertions.md#death) in the Assertions +Reference. + +### Death Tests And Threads + +The reason for the two death test styles has to do with thread safety. Due to +well-known problems with forking in the presence of threads, death tests should +be run in a single-threaded context. Sometimes, however, it isn't feasible to +arrange that kind of environment. For example, statically-initialized modules +may start threads before main is ever reached. Once threads have been created, +it may be difficult or impossible to clean them up. + +googletest has three features intended to raise awareness of threading issues. + +1. A warning is emitted if multiple threads are running when a death test is + encountered. +2. Test suites with a name ending in "DeathTest" are run before all other + tests. +3. It uses `clone()` instead of `fork()` to spawn the child process on Linux + (`clone()` is not available on Cygwin and Mac), as `fork()` is more likely + to cause the child to hang when the parent process has multiple threads. + +It's perfectly fine to create threads inside a death test statement; they are +executed in a separate process and cannot affect the parent. + +### Death Test Styles + +The "threadsafe" death test style was introduced in order to help mitigate the +risks of testing in a possibly multithreaded environment. It trades increased +test execution time (potentially dramatically so) for improved thread safety. + +The automated testing framework does not set the style flag. You can choose a +particular style of death tests by setting the flag programmatically: + +```c++ +testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style="threadsafe" +``` + +You can do this in `main()` to set the style for all death tests in the binary, +or in individual tests. Recall that flags are saved before running each test and +restored afterwards, so you need not do that yourself. For example: + +```c++ +int main(int argc, char** argv) { + testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv); + testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style = "fast"; + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +} + +TEST(MyDeathTest, TestOne) { + testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style = "threadsafe"; + // This test is run in the "threadsafe" style: + ASSERT_DEATH(ThisShouldDie(), ""); +} + +TEST(MyDeathTest, TestTwo) { + // This test is run in the "fast" style: + ASSERT_DEATH(ThisShouldDie(), ""); +} +``` + +### Caveats + +The `statement` argument of `ASSERT_EXIT()` can be any valid C++ statement. If +it leaves the current function via a `return` statement or by throwing an +exception, the death test is considered to have failed. Some googletest macros +may return from the current function (e.g. `ASSERT_TRUE()`), so be sure to avoid +them in `statement`. + +Since `statement` runs in the child process, any in-memory side effect (e.g. +modifying a variable, releasing memory, etc) it causes will *not* be observable +in the parent process. In particular, if you release memory in a death test, +your program will fail the heap check as the parent process will never see the +memory reclaimed. To solve this problem, you can + +1. try not to free memory in a death test; +2. free the memory again in the parent process; or +3. do not use the heap checker in your program. + +Due to an implementation detail, you cannot place multiple death test assertions +on the same line; otherwise, compilation will fail with an unobvious error +message. + +Despite the improved thread safety afforded by the "threadsafe" style of death +test, thread problems such as deadlock are still possible in the presence of +handlers registered with `pthread_atfork(3)`. + + +## Using Assertions in Sub-routines + +{: .callout .note} +Note: If you want to put a series of test assertions in a subroutine to check +for a complex condition, consider using +[a custom GMock matcher](gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers) +instead. This lets you provide a more readable error message in case of failure +and avoid all of the issues described below. + +### Adding Traces to Assertions + +If a test sub-routine is called from several places, when an assertion inside it +fails, it can be hard to tell which invocation of the sub-routine the failure is +from. You can alleviate this problem using extra logging or custom failure +messages, but that usually clutters up your tests. A better solution is to use +the `SCOPED_TRACE` macro or the `ScopedTrace` utility: + +```c++ +SCOPED_TRACE(message); +``` +```c++ +ScopedTrace trace("file_path", line_number, message); +``` + +where `message` can be anything streamable to `std::ostream`. `SCOPED_TRACE` +macro will cause the current file name, line number, and the given message to be +added in every failure message. `ScopedTrace` accepts explicit file name and +line number in arguments, which is useful for writing test helpers. The effect +will be undone when the control leaves the current lexical scope. + +For example, + +```c++ +10: void Sub1(int n) { +11: EXPECT_EQ(Bar(n), 1); +12: EXPECT_EQ(Bar(n + 1), 2); +13: } +14: +15: TEST(FooTest, Bar) { +16: { +17: SCOPED_TRACE("A"); // This trace point will be included in +18: // every failure in this scope. +19: Sub1(1); +20: } +21: // Now it won't. +22: Sub1(9); +23: } +``` + +could result in messages like these: + +```none +path/to/foo_test.cc:11: Failure +Value of: Bar(n) +Expected: 1 + Actual: 2 +Google Test trace: +path/to/foo_test.cc:17: A + +path/to/foo_test.cc:12: Failure +Value of: Bar(n + 1) +Expected: 2 + Actual: 3 +``` + +Without the trace, it would've been difficult to know which invocation of +`Sub1()` the two failures come from respectively. (You could add an extra +message to each assertion in `Sub1()` to indicate the value of `n`, but that's +tedious.) + +Some tips on using `SCOPED_TRACE`: + +1. With a suitable message, it's often enough to use `SCOPED_TRACE` at the + beginning of a sub-routine, instead of at each call site. +2. When calling sub-routines inside a loop, make the loop iterator part of the + message in `SCOPED_TRACE` such that you can know which iteration the failure + is from. +3. Sometimes the line number of the trace point is enough for identifying the + particular invocation of a sub-routine. In this case, you don't have to + choose a unique message for `SCOPED_TRACE`. You can simply use `""`. +4. You can use `SCOPED_TRACE` in an inner scope when there is one in the outer + scope. In this case, all active trace points will be included in the failure + messages, in reverse order they are encountered. +5. The trace dump is clickable in Emacs - hit `return` on a line number and + you'll be taken to that line in the source file! + +### Propagating Fatal Failures + +A common pitfall when using `ASSERT_*` and `FAIL*` is not understanding that +when they fail they only abort the _current function_, not the entire test. For +example, the following test will segfault: + +```c++ +void Subroutine() { + // Generates a fatal failure and aborts the current function. + ASSERT_EQ(1, 2); + + // The following won't be executed. + ... +} + +TEST(FooTest, Bar) { + Subroutine(); // The intended behavior is for the fatal failure + // in Subroutine() to abort the entire test. + + // The actual behavior: the function goes on after Subroutine() returns. + int* p = nullptr; + *p = 3; // Segfault! +} +``` + +To alleviate this, googletest provides three different solutions. You could use +either exceptions, the `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_NO_FATAL_FAILURE` assertions or the +`HasFatalFailure()` function. They are described in the following two +subsections. + +#### Asserting on Subroutines with an exception + +The following code can turn ASSERT-failure into an exception: + +```c++ +class ThrowListener : public testing::EmptyTestEventListener { + void OnTestPartResult(const testing::TestPartResult& result) override { + if (result.type() == testing::TestPartResult::kFatalFailure) { + throw testing::AssertionException(result); + } + } +}; +int main(int argc, char** argv) { + ... + testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->listeners().Append(new ThrowListener); + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +} +``` + +This listener should be added after other listeners if you have any, otherwise +they won't see failed `OnTestPartResult`. + +#### Asserting on Subroutines + +As shown above, if your test calls a subroutine that has an `ASSERT_*` failure +in it, the test will continue after the subroutine returns. This may not be what +you want. + +Often people want fatal failures to propagate like exceptions. For that +googletest offers the following macros: + +Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies +------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------- +`ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(statement);` | `EXPECT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(statement);` | `statement` doesn't generate any new fatal failures in the current thread. + +Only failures in the thread that executes the assertion are checked to determine +the result of this type of assertions. If `statement` creates new threads, +failures in these threads are ignored. + +Examples: + +```c++ +ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(Foo()); + +int i; +EXPECT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE({ + i = Bar(); +}); +``` + +Assertions from multiple threads are currently not supported on Windows. + +#### Checking for Failures in the Current Test + +`HasFatalFailure()` in the `::testing::Test` class returns `true` if an +assertion in the current test has suffered a fatal failure. This allows +functions to catch fatal failures in a sub-routine and return early. + +```c++ +class Test { + public: + ... + static bool HasFatalFailure(); +}; +``` + +The typical usage, which basically simulates the behavior of a thrown exception, +is: + +```c++ +TEST(FooTest, Bar) { + Subroutine(); + // Aborts if Subroutine() had a fatal failure. + if (HasFatalFailure()) return; + + // The following won't be executed. + ... +} +``` + +If `HasFatalFailure()` is used outside of `TEST()` , `TEST_F()` , or a test +fixture, you must add the `::testing::Test::` prefix, as in: + +```c++ +if (testing::Test::HasFatalFailure()) return; +``` + +Similarly, `HasNonfatalFailure()` returns `true` if the current test has at +least one non-fatal failure, and `HasFailure()` returns `true` if the current +test has at least one failure of either kind. + +## Logging Additional Information + +In your test code, you can call `RecordProperty("key", value)` to log additional +information, where `value` can be either a string or an `int`. The *last* value +recorded for a key will be emitted to the +[XML output](#generating-an-xml-report) if you specify one. For example, the +test + +```c++ +TEST_F(WidgetUsageTest, MinAndMaxWidgets) { + RecordProperty("MaximumWidgets", ComputeMaxUsage()); + RecordProperty("MinimumWidgets", ComputeMinUsage()); +} +``` + +will output XML like this: + +```xml + ... + + ... +``` + +{: .callout .note} +> NOTE: +> +> * `RecordProperty()` is a static member of the `Test` class. Therefore it +> needs to be prefixed with `::testing::Test::` if used outside of the +> `TEST` body and the test fixture class. +> * *`key`* must be a valid XML attribute name, and cannot conflict with the +> ones already used by googletest (`name`, `status`, `time`, `classname`, +> `type_param`, and `value_param`). +> * Calling `RecordProperty()` outside of the lifespan of a test is allowed. +> If it's called outside of a test but between a test suite's +> `SetUpTestSuite()` and `TearDownTestSuite()` methods, it will be +> attributed to the XML element for the test suite. If it's called outside +> of all test suites (e.g. in a test environment), it will be attributed to +> the top-level XML element. + +## Sharing Resources Between Tests in the Same Test Suite + +googletest creates a new test fixture object for each test in order to make +tests independent and easier to debug. However, sometimes tests use resources +that are expensive to set up, making the one-copy-per-test model prohibitively +expensive. + +If the tests don't change the resource, there's no harm in their sharing a +single resource copy. So, in addition to per-test set-up/tear-down, googletest +also supports per-test-suite set-up/tear-down. To use it: + +1. In your test fixture class (say `FooTest` ), declare as `static` some member + variables to hold the shared resources. +2. Outside your test fixture class (typically just below it), define those + member variables, optionally giving them initial values. +3. In the same test fixture class, define a `static void SetUpTestSuite()` + function (remember not to spell it as **`SetupTestSuite`** with a small + `u`!) to set up the shared resources and a `static void TearDownTestSuite()` + function to tear them down. + +That's it! googletest automatically calls `SetUpTestSuite()` before running the +*first test* in the `FooTest` test suite (i.e. before creating the first +`FooTest` object), and calls `TearDownTestSuite()` after running the *last test* +in it (i.e. after deleting the last `FooTest` object). In between, the tests can +use the shared resources. + +Remember that the test order is undefined, so your code can't depend on a test +preceding or following another. Also, the tests must either not modify the state +of any shared resource, or, if they do modify the state, they must restore the +state to its original value before passing control to the next test. + +Here's an example of per-test-suite set-up and tear-down: + +```c++ +class FooTest : public testing::Test { + protected: + // Per-test-suite set-up. + // Called before the first test in this test suite. + // Can be omitted if not needed. + static void SetUpTestSuite() { + shared_resource_ = new ...; + } + + // Per-test-suite tear-down. + // Called after the last test in this test suite. + // Can be omitted if not needed. + static void TearDownTestSuite() { + delete shared_resource_; + shared_resource_ = nullptr; + } + + // You can define per-test set-up logic as usual. + void SetUp() override { ... } + + // You can define per-test tear-down logic as usual. + void TearDown() override { ... } + + // Some expensive resource shared by all tests. + static T* shared_resource_; +}; + +T* FooTest::shared_resource_ = nullptr; + +TEST_F(FooTest, Test1) { + ... you can refer to shared_resource_ here ... +} + +TEST_F(FooTest, Test2) { + ... you can refer to shared_resource_ here ... +} +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: Though the above code declares `SetUpTestSuite()` protected, it may +sometimes be necessary to declare it public, such as when using it with +`TEST_P`. + +## Global Set-Up and Tear-Down + +Just as you can do set-up and tear-down at the test level and the test suite +level, you can also do it at the test program level. Here's how. + +First, you subclass the `::testing::Environment` class to define a test +environment, which knows how to set-up and tear-down: + +```c++ +class Environment : public ::testing::Environment { + public: + ~Environment() override {} + + // Override this to define how to set up the environment. + void SetUp() override {} + + // Override this to define how to tear down the environment. + void TearDown() override {} +}; +``` + +Then, you register an instance of your environment class with googletest by +calling the `::testing::AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` function: + +```c++ +Environment* AddGlobalTestEnvironment(Environment* env); +``` + +Now, when `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is called, it first calls the `SetUp()` method of +each environment object, then runs the tests if none of the environments +reported fatal failures and `GTEST_SKIP()` was not called. `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` +always calls `TearDown()` with each environment object, regardless of whether or +not the tests were run. + +It's OK to register multiple environment objects. In this suite, their `SetUp()` +will be called in the order they are registered, and their `TearDown()` will be +called in the reverse order. + +Note that googletest takes ownership of the registered environment objects. +Therefore **do not delete them** by yourself. + +You should call `AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` before `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is called, +probably in `main()`. If you use `gtest_main`, you need to call this before +`main()` starts for it to take effect. One way to do this is to define a global +variable like this: + +```c++ +testing::Environment* const foo_env = + testing::AddGlobalTestEnvironment(new FooEnvironment); +``` + +However, we strongly recommend you to write your own `main()` and call +`AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` there, as relying on initialization of global +variables makes the code harder to read and may cause problems when you register +multiple environments from different translation units and the environments have +dependencies among them (remember that the compiler doesn't guarantee the order +in which global variables from different translation units are initialized). + +## Value-Parameterized Tests + +*Value-parameterized tests* allow you to test your code with different +parameters without writing multiple copies of the same test. This is useful in a +number of situations, for example: + +* You have a piece of code whose behavior is affected by one or more + command-line flags. You want to make sure your code performs correctly for + various values of those flags. +* You want to test different implementations of an OO interface. +* You want to test your code over various inputs (a.k.a. data-driven testing). + This feature is easy to abuse, so please exercise your good sense when doing + it! + +### How to Write Value-Parameterized Tests + +To write value-parameterized tests, first you should define a fixture class. It +must be derived from both `testing::Test` and `testing::WithParamInterface` +(the latter is a pure interface), where `T` is the type of your parameter +values. For convenience, you can just derive the fixture class from +`testing::TestWithParam`, which itself is derived from both `testing::Test` +and `testing::WithParamInterface`. `T` can be any copyable type. If it's a +raw pointer, you are responsible for managing the lifespan of the pointed +values. + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: If your test fixture defines `SetUpTestSuite()` or `TearDownTestSuite()` +they must be declared **public** rather than **protected** in order to use +`TEST_P`. + +```c++ +class FooTest : + public testing::TestWithParam { + // You can implement all the usual fixture class members here. + // To access the test parameter, call GetParam() from class + // TestWithParam. +}; + +// Or, when you want to add parameters to a pre-existing fixture class: +class BaseTest : public testing::Test { + ... +}; +class BarTest : public BaseTest, + public testing::WithParamInterface { + ... +}; +``` + +Then, use the `TEST_P` macro to define as many test patterns using this fixture +as you want. The `_P` suffix is for "parameterized" or "pattern", whichever you +prefer to think. + +```c++ +TEST_P(FooTest, DoesBlah) { + // Inside a test, access the test parameter with the GetParam() method + // of the TestWithParam class: + EXPECT_TRUE(foo.Blah(GetParam())); + ... +} + +TEST_P(FooTest, HasBlahBlah) { + ... +} +``` + +Finally, you can use the `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` macro to instantiate the +test suite with any set of parameters you want. GoogleTest defines a number of +functions for generating test parameters—see details at +[`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P`](reference/testing.md#INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P) in +the Testing Reference. + +For example, the following statement will instantiate tests from the `FooTest` +test suite each with parameter values `"meeny"`, `"miny"`, and `"moe"` using the +[`Values`](reference/testing.md#param-generators) parameter generator: + +```c++ +INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(MeenyMinyMoe, + FooTest, + testing::Values("meeny", "miny", "moe")); +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: The code above must be placed at global or namespace scope, not at +function scope. + +The first argument to `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` is a unique name for the +instantiation of the test suite. The next argument is the name of the test +pattern, and the last is the +[parameter generator](reference/testing.md#param-generators). + +You can instantiate a test pattern more than once, so to distinguish different +instances of the pattern, the instantiation name is added as a prefix to the +actual test suite name. Remember to pick unique prefixes for different +instantiations. The tests from the instantiation above will have these names: + +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/0` for `"meeny"` +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/1` for `"miny"` +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/2` for `"moe"` +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/0` for `"meeny"` +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/1` for `"miny"` +* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/2` for `"moe"` + +You can use these names in [`--gtest_filter`](#running-a-subset-of-the-tests). + +The following statement will instantiate all tests from `FooTest` again, each +with parameter values `"cat"` and `"dog"` using the +[`ValuesIn`](reference/testing.md#param-generators) parameter generator: + +```c++ +const char* pets[] = {"cat", "dog"}; +INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(Pets, FooTest, testing::ValuesIn(pets)); +``` + +The tests from the instantiation above will have these names: + +* `Pets/FooTest.DoesBlah/0` for `"cat"` +* `Pets/FooTest.DoesBlah/1` for `"dog"` +* `Pets/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/0` for `"cat"` +* `Pets/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/1` for `"dog"` + +Please note that `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` will instantiate *all* tests in the +given test suite, whether their definitions come before or *after* the +`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` statement. + +Additionally, by default, every `TEST_P` without a corresponding +`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` causes a failing test in test suite +`GoogleTestVerification`. If you have a test suite where that omission is not an +error, for example it is in a library that may be linked in for other reasons or +where the list of test cases is dynamic and may be empty, then this check can be +suppressed by tagging the test suite: + +```c++ +GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST(FooTest); +``` + +You can see [sample7_unittest.cc] and [sample8_unittest.cc] for more examples. + +[sample7_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample7_unittest.cc "Parameterized Test example" +[sample8_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample8_unittest.cc "Parameterized Test example with multiple parameters" + +### Creating Value-Parameterized Abstract Tests + +In the above, we define and instantiate `FooTest` in the *same* source file. +Sometimes you may want to define value-parameterized tests in a library and let +other people instantiate them later. This pattern is known as *abstract tests*. +As an example of its application, when you are designing an interface you can +write a standard suite of abstract tests (perhaps using a factory function as +the test parameter) that all implementations of the interface are expected to +pass. When someone implements the interface, they can instantiate your suite to +get all the interface-conformance tests for free. + +To define abstract tests, you should organize your code like this: + +1. Put the definition of the parameterized test fixture class (e.g. `FooTest`) + in a header file, say `foo_param_test.h`. Think of this as *declaring* your + abstract tests. +2. Put the `TEST_P` definitions in `foo_param_test.cc`, which includes + `foo_param_test.h`. Think of this as *implementing* your abstract tests. + +Once they are defined, you can instantiate them by including `foo_param_test.h`, +invoking `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P()`, and depending on the library target that +contains `foo_param_test.cc`. You can instantiate the same abstract test suite +multiple times, possibly in different source files. + +### Specifying Names for Value-Parameterized Test Parameters + +The optional last argument to `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P()` allows the user to +specify a function or functor that generates custom test name suffixes based on +the test parameters. The function should accept one argument of type +`testing::TestParamInfo`, and return `std::string`. + +`testing::PrintToStringParamName` is a builtin test suffix generator that +returns the value of `testing::PrintToString(GetParam())`. It does not work for +`std::string` or C strings. + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: test names must be non-empty, unique, and may only contain ASCII +alphanumeric characters. In particular, they +[should not contain underscores](faq.md#why-should-test-suite-names-and-test-names-not-contain-underscore) + +```c++ +class MyTestSuite : public testing::TestWithParam {}; + +TEST_P(MyTestSuite, MyTest) +{ + std::cout << "Example Test Param: " << GetParam() << std::endl; +} + +INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(MyGroup, MyTestSuite, testing::Range(0, 10), + testing::PrintToStringParamName()); +``` + +Providing a custom functor allows for more control over test parameter name +generation, especially for types where the automatic conversion does not +generate helpful parameter names (e.g. strings as demonstrated above). The +following example illustrates this for multiple parameters, an enumeration type +and a string, and also demonstrates how to combine generators. It uses a lambda +for conciseness: + +```c++ +enum class MyType { MY_FOO = 0, MY_BAR = 1 }; + +class MyTestSuite : public testing::TestWithParam> { +}; + +INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P( + MyGroup, MyTestSuite, + testing::Combine( + testing::Values(MyType::MY_FOO, MyType::MY_BAR), + testing::Values("A", "B")), + [](const testing::TestParamInfo& info) { + std::string name = absl::StrCat( + std::get<0>(info.param) == MyType::MY_FOO ? "Foo" : "Bar", + std::get<1>(info.param)); + absl::c_replace_if(name, [](char c) { return !std::isalnum(c); }, '_'); + return name; + }); +``` + +## Typed Tests + +Suppose you have multiple implementations of the same interface and want to make +sure that all of them satisfy some common requirements. Or, you may have defined +several types that are supposed to conform to the same "concept" and you want to +verify it. In both cases, you want the same test logic repeated for different +types. + +While you can write one `TEST` or `TEST_F` for each type you want to test (and +you may even factor the test logic into a function template that you invoke from +the `TEST`), it's tedious and doesn't scale: if you want `m` tests over `n` +types, you'll end up writing `m*n` `TEST`s. + +*Typed tests* allow you to repeat the same test logic over a list of types. You +only need to write the test logic once, although you must know the type list +when writing typed tests. Here's how you do it: + +First, define a fixture class template. It should be parameterized by a type. +Remember to derive it from `::testing::Test`: + +```c++ +template +class FooTest : public testing::Test { + public: + ... + using List = std::list; + static T shared_; + T value_; +}; +``` + +Next, associate a list of types with the test suite, which will be repeated for +each type in the list: + +```c++ +using MyTypes = ::testing::Types; +TYPED_TEST_SUITE(FooTest, MyTypes); +``` + +The type alias (`using` or `typedef`) is necessary for the `TYPED_TEST_SUITE` +macro to parse correctly. Otherwise the compiler will think that each comma in +the type list introduces a new macro argument. + +Then, use `TYPED_TEST()` instead of `TEST_F()` to define a typed test for this +test suite. You can repeat this as many times as you want: + +```c++ +TYPED_TEST(FooTest, DoesBlah) { + // Inside a test, refer to the special name TypeParam to get the type + // parameter. Since we are inside a derived class template, C++ requires + // us to visit the members of FooTest via 'this'. + TypeParam n = this->value_; + + // To visit static members of the fixture, add the 'TestFixture::' + // prefix. + n += TestFixture::shared_; + + // To refer to typedefs in the fixture, add the 'typename TestFixture::' + // prefix. The 'typename' is required to satisfy the compiler. + typename TestFixture::List values; + + values.push_back(n); + ... +} + +TYPED_TEST(FooTest, HasPropertyA) { ... } +``` + +You can see [sample6_unittest.cc] for a complete example. + +[sample6_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample6_unittest.cc "Typed Test example" + +## Type-Parameterized Tests + +*Type-parameterized tests* are like typed tests, except that they don't require +you to know the list of types ahead of time. Instead, you can define the test +logic first and instantiate it with different type lists later. You can even +instantiate it more than once in the same program. + +If you are designing an interface or concept, you can define a suite of +type-parameterized tests to verify properties that any valid implementation of +the interface/concept should have. Then, the author of each implementation can +just instantiate the test suite with their type to verify that it conforms to +the requirements, without having to write similar tests repeatedly. Here's an +example: + +First, define a fixture class template, as we did with typed tests: + +```c++ +template +class FooTest : public testing::Test { + ... +}; +``` + +Next, declare that you will define a type-parameterized test suite: + +```c++ +TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(FooTest); +``` + +Then, use `TYPED_TEST_P()` to define a type-parameterized test. You can repeat +this as many times as you want: + +```c++ +TYPED_TEST_P(FooTest, DoesBlah) { + // Inside a test, refer to TypeParam to get the type parameter. + TypeParam n = 0; + ... +} + +TYPED_TEST_P(FooTest, HasPropertyA) { ... } +``` + +Now the tricky part: you need to register all test patterns using the +`REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P` macro before you can instantiate them. The first +argument of the macro is the test suite name; the rest are the names of the +tests in this test suite: + +```c++ +REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(FooTest, + DoesBlah, HasPropertyA); +``` + +Finally, you are free to instantiate the pattern with the types you want. If you +put the above code in a header file, you can `#include` it in multiple C++ +source files and instantiate it multiple times. + +```c++ +using MyTypes = ::testing::Types; +INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(My, FooTest, MyTypes); +``` + +To distinguish different instances of the pattern, the first argument to the +`INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P` macro is a prefix that will be added to the +actual test suite name. Remember to pick unique prefixes for different +instances. + +In the special case where the type list contains only one type, you can write +that type directly without `::testing::Types<...>`, like this: + +```c++ +INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(My, FooTest, int); +``` + +You can see [sample6_unittest.cc] for a complete example. + +## Testing Private Code + +If you change your software's internal implementation, your tests should not +break as long as the change is not observable by users. Therefore, **per the +black-box testing principle, most of the time you should test your code through +its public interfaces.** + +**If you still find yourself needing to test internal implementation code, +consider if there's a better design.** The desire to test internal +implementation is often a sign that the class is doing too much. Consider +extracting an implementation class, and testing it. Then use that implementation +class in the original class. + +If you absolutely have to test non-public interface code though, you can. There +are two cases to consider: + +* Static functions ( *not* the same as static member functions!) or unnamed + namespaces, and +* Private or protected class members + +To test them, we use the following special techniques: + +* Both static functions and definitions/declarations in an unnamed namespace + are only visible within the same translation unit. To test them, you can + `#include` the entire `.cc` file being tested in your `*_test.cc` file. + (#including `.cc` files is not a good way to reuse code - you should not do + this in production code!) + + However, a better approach is to move the private code into the + `foo::internal` namespace, where `foo` is the namespace your project + normally uses, and put the private declarations in a `*-internal.h` file. + Your production `.cc` files and your tests are allowed to include this + internal header, but your clients are not. This way, you can fully test your + internal implementation without leaking it to your clients. + +* Private class members are only accessible from within the class or by + friends. To access a class' private members, you can declare your test + fixture as a friend to the class and define accessors in your fixture. Tests + using the fixture can then access the private members of your production + class via the accessors in the fixture. Note that even though your fixture + is a friend to your production class, your tests are not automatically + friends to it, as they are technically defined in sub-classes of the + fixture. + + Another way to test private members is to refactor them into an + implementation class, which is then declared in a `*-internal.h` file. Your + clients aren't allowed to include this header but your tests can. Such is + called the + [Pimpl](https://www.gamedev.net/articles/programming/general-and-gameplay-programming/the-c-pimpl-r1794/) + (Private Implementation) idiom. + + Or, you can declare an individual test as a friend of your class by adding + this line in the class body: + + ```c++ + FRIEND_TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName); + ``` + + For example, + + ```c++ + // foo.h + class Foo { + ... + private: + FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull); + + int Bar(void* x); + }; + + // foo_test.cc + ... + TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull) { + Foo foo; + EXPECT_EQ(foo.Bar(NULL), 0); // Uses Foo's private member Bar(). + } + ``` + + Pay special attention when your class is defined in a namespace. If you want + your test fixtures and tests to be friends of your class, then they must be + defined in the exact same namespace (no anonymous or inline namespaces). + + For example, if the code to be tested looks like: + + ```c++ + namespace my_namespace { + + class Foo { + friend class FooTest; + FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, Bar); + FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, Baz); + ... definition of the class Foo ... + }; + + } // namespace my_namespace + ``` + + Your test code should be something like: + + ```c++ + namespace my_namespace { + + class FooTest : public testing::Test { + protected: + ... + }; + + TEST_F(FooTest, Bar) { ... } + TEST_F(FooTest, Baz) { ... } + + } // namespace my_namespace + ``` + +## "Catching" Failures + +If you are building a testing utility on top of googletest, you'll want to test +your utility. What framework would you use to test it? googletest, of course. + +The challenge is to verify that your testing utility reports failures correctly. +In frameworks that report a failure by throwing an exception, you could catch +the exception and assert on it. But googletest doesn't use exceptions, so how do +we test that a piece of code generates an expected failure? + +`"gtest/gtest-spi.h"` contains some constructs to do this. After #including this header, +you can use + +```c++ + EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE(statement, substring); +``` + +to assert that `statement` generates a fatal (e.g. `ASSERT_*`) failure in the +current thread whose message contains the given `substring`, or use + +```c++ + EXPECT_NONFATAL_FAILURE(statement, substring); +``` + +if you are expecting a non-fatal (e.g. `EXPECT_*`) failure. + +Only failures in the current thread are checked to determine the result of this +type of expectations. If `statement` creates new threads, failures in these +threads are also ignored. If you want to catch failures in other threads as +well, use one of the following macros instead: + +```c++ + EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE_ON_ALL_THREADS(statement, substring); + EXPECT_NONFATAL_FAILURE_ON_ALL_THREADS(statement, substring); +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: Assertions from multiple threads are currently not supported on Windows. + +For technical reasons, there are some caveats: + +1. You cannot stream a failure message to either macro. + +2. `statement` in `EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE{_ON_ALL_THREADS}()` cannot reference + local non-static variables or non-static members of `this` object. + +3. `statement` in `EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE{_ON_ALL_THREADS}()` cannot return a + value. + +## Registering tests programmatically + +The `TEST` macros handle the vast majority of all use cases, but there are few +where runtime registration logic is required. For those cases, the framework +provides the `::testing::RegisterTest` that allows callers to register arbitrary +tests dynamically. + +This is an advanced API only to be used when the `TEST` macros are insufficient. +The macros should be preferred when possible, as they avoid most of the +complexity of calling this function. + +It provides the following signature: + +```c++ +template +TestInfo* RegisterTest(const char* test_suite_name, const char* test_name, + const char* type_param, const char* value_param, + const char* file, int line, Factory factory); +``` + +The `factory` argument is a factory callable (move-constructible) object or +function pointer that creates a new instance of the Test object. It handles +ownership to the caller. The signature of the callable is `Fixture*()`, where +`Fixture` is the test fixture class for the test. All tests registered with the +same `test_suite_name` must return the same fixture type. This is checked at +runtime. + +The framework will infer the fixture class from the factory and will call the +`SetUpTestSuite` and `TearDownTestSuite` for it. + +Must be called before `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is invoked, otherwise behavior is +undefined. + +Use case example: + +```c++ +class MyFixture : public testing::Test { + public: + // All of these optional, just like in regular macro usage. + static void SetUpTestSuite() { ... } + static void TearDownTestSuite() { ... } + void SetUp() override { ... } + void TearDown() override { ... } +}; + +class MyTest : public MyFixture { + public: + explicit MyTest(int data) : data_(data) {} + void TestBody() override { ... } + + private: + int data_; +}; + +void RegisterMyTests(const std::vector& values) { + for (int v : values) { + testing::RegisterTest( + "MyFixture", ("Test" + std::to_string(v)).c_str(), nullptr, + std::to_string(v).c_str(), + __FILE__, __LINE__, + // Important to use the fixture type as the return type here. + [=]() -> MyFixture* { return new MyTest(v); }); + } +} +... +int main(int argc, char** argv) { + std::vector values_to_test = LoadValuesFromConfig(); + RegisterMyTests(values_to_test); + ... + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +} +``` +## Getting the Current Test's Name + +Sometimes a function may need to know the name of the currently running test. +For example, you may be using the `SetUp()` method of your test fixture to set +the golden file name based on which test is running. The +[`TestInfo`](reference/testing.md#TestInfo) class has this information. + +To obtain a `TestInfo` object for the currently running test, call +`current_test_info()` on the [`UnitTest`](reference/testing.md#UnitTest) +singleton object: + +```c++ + // Gets information about the currently running test. + // Do NOT delete the returned object - it's managed by the UnitTest class. + const testing::TestInfo* const test_info = + testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->current_test_info(); + + printf("We are in test %s of test suite %s.\n", + test_info->name(), + test_info->test_suite_name()); +``` + +`current_test_info()` returns a null pointer if no test is running. In +particular, you cannot find the test suite name in `SetUpTestSuite()`, +`TearDownTestSuite()` (where you know the test suite name implicitly), or +functions called from them. + +## Extending googletest by Handling Test Events + +googletest provides an **event listener API** to let you receive notifications +about the progress of a test program and test failures. The events you can +listen to include the start and end of the test program, a test suite, or a test +method, among others. You may use this API to augment or replace the standard +console output, replace the XML output, or provide a completely different form +of output, such as a GUI or a database. You can also use test events as +checkpoints to implement a resource leak checker, for example. + +### Defining Event Listeners + +To define a event listener, you subclass either +[`testing::TestEventListener`](reference/testing.md#TestEventListener) or +[`testing::EmptyTestEventListener`](reference/testing.md#EmptyTestEventListener) +The former is an (abstract) interface, where *each pure virtual method can be +overridden to handle a test event* (For example, when a test starts, the +`OnTestStart()` method will be called.). The latter provides an empty +implementation of all methods in the interface, such that a subclass only needs +to override the methods it cares about. + +When an event is fired, its context is passed to the handler function as an +argument. The following argument types are used: + +* UnitTest reflects the state of the entire test program, +* TestSuite has information about a test suite, which can contain one or more + tests, +* TestInfo contains the state of a test, and +* TestPartResult represents the result of a test assertion. + +An event handler function can examine the argument it receives to find out +interesting information about the event and the test program's state. + +Here's an example: + +```c++ + class MinimalistPrinter : public testing::EmptyTestEventListener { + // Called before a test starts. + void OnTestStart(const testing::TestInfo& test_info) override { + printf("*** Test %s.%s starting.\n", + test_info.test_suite_name(), test_info.name()); + } + + // Called after a failed assertion or a SUCCESS(). + void OnTestPartResult(const testing::TestPartResult& test_part_result) override { + printf("%s in %s:%d\n%s\n", + test_part_result.failed() ? "*** Failure" : "Success", + test_part_result.file_name(), + test_part_result.line_number(), + test_part_result.summary()); + } + + // Called after a test ends. + void OnTestEnd(const testing::TestInfo& test_info) override { + printf("*** Test %s.%s ending.\n", + test_info.test_suite_name(), test_info.name()); + } + }; +``` + +### Using Event Listeners + +To use the event listener you have defined, add an instance of it to the +googletest event listener list (represented by class +[`TestEventListeners`](reference/testing.md#TestEventListeners) - note the "s" +at the end of the name) in your `main()` function, before calling +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`: + +```c++ +int main(int argc, char** argv) { + testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv); + // Gets hold of the event listener list. + testing::TestEventListeners& listeners = + testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->listeners(); + // Adds a listener to the end. googletest takes the ownership. + listeners.Append(new MinimalistPrinter); + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +} +``` + +There's only one problem: the default test result printer is still in effect, so +its output will mingle with the output from your minimalist printer. To suppress +the default printer, just release it from the event listener list and delete it. +You can do so by adding one line: + +```c++ + ... + delete listeners.Release(listeners.default_result_printer()); + listeners.Append(new MinimalistPrinter); + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +``` + +Now, sit back and enjoy a completely different output from your tests. For more +details, see [sample9_unittest.cc]. + +[sample9_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample9_unittest.cc "Event listener example" + +You may append more than one listener to the list. When an `On*Start()` or +`OnTestPartResult()` event is fired, the listeners will receive it in the order +they appear in the list (since new listeners are added to the end of the list, +the default text printer and the default XML generator will receive the event +first). An `On*End()` event will be received by the listeners in the *reverse* +order. This allows output by listeners added later to be framed by output from +listeners added earlier. + +### Generating Failures in Listeners + +You may use failure-raising macros (`EXPECT_*()`, `ASSERT_*()`, `FAIL()`, etc) +when processing an event. There are some restrictions: + +1. You cannot generate any failure in `OnTestPartResult()` (otherwise it will + cause `OnTestPartResult()` to be called recursively). +2. A listener that handles `OnTestPartResult()` is not allowed to generate any + failure. + +When you add listeners to the listener list, you should put listeners that +handle `OnTestPartResult()` *before* listeners that can generate failures. This +ensures that failures generated by the latter are attributed to the right test +by the former. + +See [sample10_unittest.cc] for an example of a failure-raising listener. + +[sample10_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample10_unittest.cc "Failure-raising listener example" + +## Running Test Programs: Advanced Options + +googletest test programs are ordinary executables. Once built, you can run them +directly and affect their behavior via the following environment variables +and/or command line flags. For the flags to work, your programs must call +`::testing::InitGoogleTest()` before calling `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`. + +To see a list of supported flags and their usage, please run your test program +with the `--help` flag. You can also use `-h`, `-?`, or `/?` for short. + +If an option is specified both by an environment variable and by a flag, the +latter takes precedence. + +### Selecting Tests + +#### Listing Test Names + +Sometimes it is necessary to list the available tests in a program before +running them so that a filter may be applied if needed. Including the flag +`--gtest_list_tests` overrides all other flags and lists tests in the following +format: + +```none +TestSuite1. + TestName1 + TestName2 +TestSuite2. + TestName +``` + +None of the tests listed are actually run if the flag is provided. There is no +corresponding environment variable for this flag. + +#### Running a Subset of the Tests + +By default, a googletest program runs all tests the user has defined. Sometimes, +you want to run only a subset of the tests (e.g. for debugging or quickly +verifying a change). If you set the `GTEST_FILTER` environment variable or the +`--gtest_filter` flag to a filter string, googletest will only run the tests +whose full names (in the form of `TestSuiteName.TestName`) match the filter. + +The format of a filter is a '`:`'-separated list of wildcard patterns (called +the *positive patterns*) optionally followed by a '`-`' and another +'`:`'-separated pattern list (called the *negative patterns*). A test matches +the filter if and only if it matches any of the positive patterns but does not +match any of the negative patterns. + +A pattern may contain `'*'` (matches any string) or `'?'` (matches any single +character). For convenience, the filter `'*-NegativePatterns'` can be also +written as `'-NegativePatterns'`. + +For example: + +* `./foo_test` Has no flag, and thus runs all its tests. +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=*` Also runs everything, due to the single + match-everything `*` value. +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*` Runs everything in test suite + `FooTest` . +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=*Null*:*Constructor*` Runs any test whose full + name contains either `"Null"` or `"Constructor"` . +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=-*DeathTest.*` Runs all non-death tests. +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*-FooTest.Bar` Runs everything in test + suite `FooTest` except `FooTest.Bar`. +* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*:BarTest.*-FooTest.Bar:BarTest.Foo` Runs + everything in test suite `FooTest` except `FooTest.Bar` and everything in + test suite `BarTest` except `BarTest.Foo`. + +#### Stop test execution upon first failure + +By default, a googletest program runs all tests the user has defined. In some +cases (e.g. iterative test development & execution) it may be desirable stop +test execution upon first failure (trading improved latency for completeness). +If `GTEST_FAIL_FAST` environment variable or `--gtest_fail_fast` flag is set, +the test runner will stop execution as soon as the first test failure is +found. + +#### Temporarily Disabling Tests + +If you have a broken test that you cannot fix right away, you can add the +`DISABLED_` prefix to its name. This will exclude it from execution. This is +better than commenting out the code or using `#if 0`, as disabled tests are +still compiled (and thus won't rot). + +If you need to disable all tests in a test suite, you can either add `DISABLED_` +to the front of the name of each test, or alternatively add it to the front of +the test suite name. + +For example, the following tests won't be run by googletest, even though they +will still be compiled: + +```c++ +// Tests that Foo does Abc. +TEST(FooTest, DISABLED_DoesAbc) { ... } + +class DISABLED_BarTest : public testing::Test { ... }; + +// Tests that Bar does Xyz. +TEST_F(DISABLED_BarTest, DoesXyz) { ... } +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: This feature should only be used for temporary pain-relief. You still have +to fix the disabled tests at a later date. As a reminder, googletest will print +a banner warning you if a test program contains any disabled tests. + +{: .callout .tip} +TIP: You can easily count the number of disabled tests you have using +`grep`. This number can be used as a metric for +improving your test quality. + +#### Temporarily Enabling Disabled Tests + +To include disabled tests in test execution, just invoke the test program with +the `--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests` flag or set the +`GTEST_ALSO_RUN_DISABLED_TESTS` environment variable to a value other than `0`. +You can combine this with the `--gtest_filter` flag to further select which +disabled tests to run. + +### Repeating the Tests + +Once in a while you'll run into a test whose result is hit-or-miss. Perhaps it +will fail only 1% of the time, making it rather hard to reproduce the bug under +a debugger. This can be a major source of frustration. + +The `--gtest_repeat` flag allows you to repeat all (or selected) test methods in +a program many times. Hopefully, a flaky test will eventually fail and give you +a chance to debug. Here's how to use it: + +```none +$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000 +Repeat foo_test 1000 times and don't stop at failures. + +$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=-1 +A negative count means repeating forever. + +$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_break_on_failure +Repeat foo_test 1000 times, stopping at the first failure. This +is especially useful when running under a debugger: when the test +fails, it will drop into the debugger and you can then inspect +variables and stacks. + +$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_filter=FooBar.* +Repeat the tests whose name matches the filter 1000 times. +``` + +If your test program contains +[global set-up/tear-down](#global-set-up-and-tear-down) code, it will be +repeated in each iteration as well, as the flakiness may be in it. You can also +specify the repeat count by setting the `GTEST_REPEAT` environment variable. + +### Shuffling the Tests + +You can specify the `--gtest_shuffle` flag (or set the `GTEST_SHUFFLE` +environment variable to `1`) to run the tests in a program in a random order. +This helps to reveal bad dependencies between tests. + +By default, googletest uses a random seed calculated from the current time. +Therefore you'll get a different order every time. The console output includes +the random seed value, such that you can reproduce an order-related test failure +later. To specify the random seed explicitly, use the `--gtest_random_seed=SEED` +flag (or set the `GTEST_RANDOM_SEED` environment variable), where `SEED` is an +integer in the range [0, 99999]. The seed value 0 is special: it tells +googletest to do the default behavior of calculating the seed from the current +time. + +If you combine this with `--gtest_repeat=N`, googletest will pick a different +random seed and re-shuffle the tests in each iteration. + +### Controlling Test Output + +#### Colored Terminal Output + +googletest can use colors in its terminal output to make it easier to spot the +important information: + +
...
+[----------] 1 test from FooTest
+[ RUN      ] FooTest.DoesAbc
+[       OK ] FooTest.DoesAbc
+[----------] 2 tests from BarTest
+[ RUN      ] BarTest.HasXyzProperty
+[       OK ] BarTest.HasXyzProperty
+[ RUN      ] BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+... some error messages ...
+[   FAILED ] BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+...
+[==========] 30 tests from 14 test suites ran.
+[   PASSED ] 28 tests.
+[   FAILED ] 2 tests, listed below:
+[   FAILED ] BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+[   FAILED ] AnotherTest.DoesXyz
+
+ 2 FAILED TESTS
+
+ +You can set the `GTEST_COLOR` environment variable or the `--gtest_color` +command line flag to `yes`, `no`, or `auto` (the default) to enable colors, +disable colors, or let googletest decide. When the value is `auto`, googletest +will use colors if and only if the output goes to a terminal and (on non-Windows +platforms) the `TERM` environment variable is set to `xterm` or `xterm-color`. + +#### Suppressing test passes + +By default, googletest prints 1 line of output for each test, indicating if it +passed or failed. To show only test failures, run the test program with +`--gtest_brief=1`, or set the GTEST_BRIEF environment variable to `1`. + +#### Suppressing the Elapsed Time + +By default, googletest prints the time it takes to run each test. To disable +that, run the test program with the `--gtest_print_time=0` command line flag, or +set the GTEST_PRINT_TIME environment variable to `0`. + +#### Suppressing UTF-8 Text Output + +In case of assertion failures, googletest prints expected and actual values of +type `string` both as hex-encoded strings as well as in readable UTF-8 text if +they contain valid non-ASCII UTF-8 characters. If you want to suppress the UTF-8 +text because, for example, you don't have an UTF-8 compatible output medium, run +the test program with `--gtest_print_utf8=0` or set the `GTEST_PRINT_UTF8` +environment variable to `0`. + + + +#### Generating an XML Report + +googletest can emit a detailed XML report to a file in addition to its normal +textual output. The report contains the duration of each test, and thus can help +you identify slow tests. + +To generate the XML report, set the `GTEST_OUTPUT` environment variable or the +`--gtest_output` flag to the string `"xml:path_to_output_file"`, which will +create the file at the given location. You can also just use the string `"xml"`, +in which case the output can be found in the `test_detail.xml` file in the +current directory. + +If you specify a directory (for example, `"xml:output/directory/"` on Linux or +`"xml:output\directory\"` on Windows), googletest will create the XML file in +that directory, named after the test executable (e.g. `foo_test.xml` for test +program `foo_test` or `foo_test.exe`). If the file already exists (perhaps left +over from a previous run), googletest will pick a different name (e.g. +`foo_test_1.xml`) to avoid overwriting it. + +The report is based on the `junitreport` Ant task. Since that format was +originally intended for Java, a little interpretation is required to make it +apply to googletest tests, as shown here: + +```xml + + + + + + + + + +``` + +* The root `` element corresponds to the entire test program. +* `` elements correspond to googletest test suites. +* `` elements correspond to googletest test functions. + +For instance, the following program + +```c++ +TEST(MathTest, Addition) { ... } +TEST(MathTest, Subtraction) { ... } +TEST(LogicTest, NonContradiction) { ... } +``` + +could generate this report: + +```xml + + + + + ... + ... + + + + + + + + + +``` + +Things to note: + +* The `tests` attribute of a `` or `` element tells how + many test functions the googletest program or test suite contains, while the + `failures` attribute tells how many of them failed. + +* The `time` attribute expresses the duration of the test, test suite, or + entire test program in seconds. + +* The `timestamp` attribute records the local date and time of the test + execution. + +* Each `` element corresponds to a single failed googletest + assertion. + +#### Generating a JSON Report + +googletest can also emit a JSON report as an alternative format to XML. To +generate the JSON report, set the `GTEST_OUTPUT` environment variable or the +`--gtest_output` flag to the string `"json:path_to_output_file"`, which will +create the file at the given location. You can also just use the string +`"json"`, in which case the output can be found in the `test_detail.json` file +in the current directory. + +The report format conforms to the following JSON Schema: + +```json +{ + "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/schema#", + "type": "object", + "definitions": { + "TestCase": { + "type": "object", + "properties": { + "name": { "type": "string" }, + "tests": { "type": "integer" }, + "failures": { "type": "integer" }, + "disabled": { "type": "integer" }, + "time": { "type": "string" }, + "testsuite": { + "type": "array", + "items": { + "$ref": "#/definitions/TestInfo" + } + } + } + }, + "TestInfo": { + "type": "object", + "properties": { + "name": { "type": "string" }, + "status": { + "type": "string", + "enum": ["RUN", "NOTRUN"] + }, + "time": { "type": "string" }, + "classname": { "type": "string" }, + "failures": { + "type": "array", + "items": { + "$ref": "#/definitions/Failure" + } + } + } + }, + "Failure": { + "type": "object", + "properties": { + "failures": { "type": "string" }, + "type": { "type": "string" } + } + } + }, + "properties": { + "tests": { "type": "integer" }, + "failures": { "type": "integer" }, + "disabled": { "type": "integer" }, + "errors": { "type": "integer" }, + "timestamp": { + "type": "string", + "format": "date-time" + }, + "time": { "type": "string" }, + "name": { "type": "string" }, + "testsuites": { + "type": "array", + "items": { + "$ref": "#/definitions/TestCase" + } + } + } +} +``` + +The report uses the format that conforms to the following Proto3 using the +[JSON encoding](https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#json): + +```proto +syntax = "proto3"; + +package googletest; + +import "google/protobuf/timestamp.proto"; +import "google/protobuf/duration.proto"; + +message UnitTest { + int32 tests = 1; + int32 failures = 2; + int32 disabled = 3; + int32 errors = 4; + google.protobuf.Timestamp timestamp = 5; + google.protobuf.Duration time = 6; + string name = 7; + repeated TestCase testsuites = 8; +} + +message TestCase { + string name = 1; + int32 tests = 2; + int32 failures = 3; + int32 disabled = 4; + int32 errors = 5; + google.protobuf.Duration time = 6; + repeated TestInfo testsuite = 7; +} + +message TestInfo { + string name = 1; + enum Status { + RUN = 0; + NOTRUN = 1; + } + Status status = 2; + google.protobuf.Duration time = 3; + string classname = 4; + message Failure { + string failures = 1; + string type = 2; + } + repeated Failure failures = 5; +} +``` + +For instance, the following program + +```c++ +TEST(MathTest, Addition) { ... } +TEST(MathTest, Subtraction) { ... } +TEST(LogicTest, NonContradiction) { ... } +``` + +could generate this report: + +```json +{ + "tests": 3, + "failures": 1, + "errors": 0, + "time": "0.035s", + "timestamp": "2011-10-31T18:52:42Z", + "name": "AllTests", + "testsuites": [ + { + "name": "MathTest", + "tests": 2, + "failures": 1, + "errors": 0, + "time": "0.015s", + "testsuite": [ + { + "name": "Addition", + "status": "RUN", + "time": "0.007s", + "classname": "", + "failures": [ + { + "message": "Value of: add(1, 1)\n Actual: 3\nExpected: 2", + "type": "" + }, + { + "message": "Value of: add(1, -1)\n Actual: 1\nExpected: 0", + "type": "" + } + ] + }, + { + "name": "Subtraction", + "status": "RUN", + "time": "0.005s", + "classname": "" + } + ] + }, + { + "name": "LogicTest", + "tests": 1, + "failures": 0, + "errors": 0, + "time": "0.005s", + "testsuite": [ + { + "name": "NonContradiction", + "status": "RUN", + "time": "0.005s", + "classname": "" + } + ] + } + ] +} +``` + +{: .callout .important} +IMPORTANT: The exact format of the JSON document is subject to change. + +### Controlling How Failures Are Reported + +#### Detecting Test Premature Exit + +Google Test implements the _premature-exit-file_ protocol for test runners +to catch any kind of unexpected exits of test programs. Upon start, +Google Test creates the file which will be automatically deleted after +all work has been finished. Then, the test runner can check if this file +exists. In case the file remains undeleted, the inspected test has exited +prematurely. + +This feature is enabled only if the `TEST_PREMATURE_EXIT_FILE` environment +variable has been set. + +#### Turning Assertion Failures into Break-Points + +When running test programs under a debugger, it's very convenient if the +debugger can catch an assertion failure and automatically drop into interactive +mode. googletest's *break-on-failure* mode supports this behavior. + +To enable it, set the `GTEST_BREAK_ON_FAILURE` environment variable to a value +other than `0`. Alternatively, you can use the `--gtest_break_on_failure` +command line flag. + +#### Disabling Catching Test-Thrown Exceptions + +googletest can be used either with or without exceptions enabled. If a test +throws a C++ exception or (on Windows) a structured exception (SEH), by default +googletest catches it, reports it as a test failure, and continues with the next +test method. This maximizes the coverage of a test run. Also, on Windows an +uncaught exception will cause a pop-up window, so catching the exceptions allows +you to run the tests automatically. + +When debugging the test failures, however, you may instead want the exceptions +to be handled by the debugger, such that you can examine the call stack when an +exception is thrown. To achieve that, set the `GTEST_CATCH_EXCEPTIONS` +environment variable to `0`, or use the `--gtest_catch_exceptions=0` flag when +running the tests. + +### Sanitizer Integration + +The +[Undefined Behavior Sanitizer](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html), +[Address Sanitizer](https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer), +and +[Thread Sanitizer](https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/ThreadSanitizerCppManual) +all provide weak functions that you can override to trigger explicit failures +when they detect sanitizer errors, such as creating a reference from `nullptr`. +To override these functions, place definitions for them in a source file that +you compile as part of your main binary: + +``` +extern "C" { +void __ubsan_on_report() { + FAIL() << "Encountered an undefined behavior sanitizer error"; +} +void __asan_on_error() { + FAIL() << "Encountered an address sanitizer error"; +} +void __tsan_on_report() { + FAIL() << "Encountered a thread sanitizer error"; +} +} // extern "C" +``` + +After compiling your project with one of the sanitizers enabled, if a particular +test triggers a sanitizer error, googletest will report that it failed. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/assets/css/style.scss b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/assets/css/style.scss new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb30f41 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/assets/css/style.scss @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +--- + +@import "jekyll-theme-primer"; +@import "main"; diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/community_created_documentation.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/community_created_documentation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4569075 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/community_created_documentation.md @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +# Community-Created Documentation + +The following is a list, in no particular order, of links to documentation +created by the Googletest community. + +* [Googlemock Insights](https://github.com/ElectricRCAircraftGuy/eRCaGuy_dotfiles/blob/master/googletest/insights.md), + by [ElectricRCAircraftGuy](https://github.com/ElectricRCAircraftGuy) diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/faq.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/faq.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9042da1 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/faq.md @@ -0,0 +1,693 @@ +# Googletest FAQ + +## Why should test suite names and test names not contain underscore? + +{: .callout .note} +Note: Googletest reserves underscore (`_`) for special purpose keywords, such as +[the `DISABLED_` prefix](advanced.md#temporarily-disabling-tests), in addition +to the following rationale. + +Underscore (`_`) is special, as C++ reserves the following to be used by the +compiler and the standard library: + +1. any identifier that starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter, and +2. any identifier that contains two consecutive underscores (i.e. `__`) + *anywhere* in its name. + +User code is *prohibited* from using such identifiers. + +Now let's look at what this means for `TEST` and `TEST_F`. + +Currently `TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName)` generates a class named +`TestSuiteName_TestName_Test`. What happens if `TestSuiteName` or `TestName` +contains `_`? + +1. If `TestSuiteName` starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter (say, + `_Foo`), we end up with `_Foo_TestName_Test`, which is reserved and thus + invalid. +2. If `TestSuiteName` ends with an `_` (say, `Foo_`), we get + `Foo__TestName_Test`, which is invalid. +3. If `TestName` starts with an `_` (say, `_Bar`), we get + `TestSuiteName__Bar_Test`, which is invalid. +4. If `TestName` ends with an `_` (say, `Bar_`), we get + `TestSuiteName_Bar__Test`, which is invalid. + +So clearly `TestSuiteName` and `TestName` cannot start or end with `_` +(Actually, `TestSuiteName` can start with `_` -- as long as the `_` isn't +followed by an upper-case letter. But that's getting complicated. So for +simplicity we just say that it cannot start with `_`.). + +It may seem fine for `TestSuiteName` and `TestName` to contain `_` in the +middle. However, consider this: + +```c++ +TEST(Time, Flies_Like_An_Arrow) { ... } +TEST(Time_Flies, Like_An_Arrow) { ... } +``` + +Now, the two `TEST`s will both generate the same class +(`Time_Flies_Like_An_Arrow_Test`). That's not good. + +So for simplicity, we just ask the users to avoid `_` in `TestSuiteName` and +`TestName`. The rule is more constraining than necessary, but it's simple and +easy to remember. It also gives googletest some wiggle room in case its +implementation needs to change in the future. + +If you violate the rule, there may not be immediate consequences, but your test +may (just may) break with a new compiler (or a new version of the compiler you +are using) or with a new version of googletest. Therefore it's best to follow +the rule. + +## Why does googletest support `EXPECT_EQ(NULL, ptr)` and `ASSERT_EQ(NULL, ptr)` but not `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)` and `ASSERT_NE(NULL, ptr)`? + +First of all, you can use `nullptr` with each of these macros, e.g. +`EXPECT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`, `EXPECT_NE(ptr, nullptr)`, `ASSERT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`, +`ASSERT_NE(ptr, nullptr)`. This is the preferred syntax in the style guide +because `nullptr` does not have the type problems that `NULL` does. + +Due to some peculiarity of C++, it requires some non-trivial template meta +programming tricks to support using `NULL` as an argument of the `EXPECT_XX()` +and `ASSERT_XX()` macros. Therefore we only do it where it's most needed +(otherwise we make the implementation of googletest harder to maintain and more +error-prone than necessary). + +Historically, the `EXPECT_EQ()` macro took the *expected* value as its first +argument and the *actual* value as the second, though this argument order is now +discouraged. It was reasonable that someone wanted +to write `EXPECT_EQ(NULL, some_expression)`, and this indeed was requested +several times. Therefore we implemented it. + +The need for `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)` wasn't nearly as strong. When the assertion +fails, you already know that `ptr` must be `NULL`, so it doesn't add any +information to print `ptr` in this case. That means `EXPECT_TRUE(ptr != NULL)` +works just as well. + +If we were to support `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)`, for consistency we'd have to +support `EXPECT_NE(ptr, NULL)` as well. This means using the template meta +programming tricks twice in the implementation, making it even harder to +understand and maintain. We believe the benefit doesn't justify the cost. + +Finally, with the growth of the gMock matcher library, we are encouraging people +to use the unified `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` syntax more often in tests. One +significant advantage of the matcher approach is that matchers can be easily +combined to form new matchers, while the `EXPECT_NE`, etc, macros cannot be +easily combined. Therefore we want to invest more in the matchers than in the +`EXPECT_XX()` macros. + +## I need to test that different implementations of an interface satisfy some common requirements. Should I use typed tests or value-parameterized tests? + +For testing various implementations of the same interface, either typed tests or +value-parameterized tests can get it done. It's really up to you the user to +decide which is more convenient for you, depending on your particular case. Some +rough guidelines: + +* Typed tests can be easier to write if instances of the different + implementations can be created the same way, modulo the type. For example, + if all these implementations have a public default constructor (such that + you can write `new TypeParam`), or if their factory functions have the same + form (e.g. `CreateInstance()`). +* Value-parameterized tests can be easier to write if you need different code + patterns to create different implementations' instances, e.g. `new Foo` vs + `new Bar(5)`. To accommodate for the differences, you can write factory + function wrappers and pass these function pointers to the tests as their + parameters. +* When a typed test fails, the default output includes the name of the type, + which can help you quickly identify which implementation is wrong. + Value-parameterized tests only show the number of the failed iteration by + default. You will need to define a function that returns the iteration name + and pass it as the third parameter to INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P to have more + useful output. +* When using typed tests, you need to make sure you are testing against the + interface type, not the concrete types (in other words, you want to make + sure `implicit_cast(my_concrete_impl)` works, not just that + `my_concrete_impl` works). It's less likely to make mistakes in this area + when using value-parameterized tests. + +I hope I didn't confuse you more. :-) If you don't mind, I'd suggest you to give +both approaches a try. Practice is a much better way to grasp the subtle +differences between the two tools. Once you have some concrete experience, you +can much more easily decide which one to use the next time. + +## I got some run-time errors about invalid proto descriptors when using `ProtocolMessageEquals`. Help! + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** `ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` are *deprecated* +now. Please use `EqualsProto`, etc instead. + +`ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` were redefined recently and +are now less tolerant of invalid protocol buffer definitions. In particular, if +you have a `foo.proto` that doesn't fully qualify the type of a protocol message +it references (e.g. `message` where it should be `message`), you +will now get run-time errors like: + +``` +... descriptor.cc:...] Invalid proto descriptor for file "path/to/foo.proto": +... descriptor.cc:...] blah.MyMessage.my_field: ".Bar" is not defined. +``` + +If you see this, your `.proto` file is broken and needs to be fixed by making +the types fully qualified. The new definition of `ProtocolMessageEquals` and +`ProtocolMessageEquiv` just happen to reveal your bug. + +## My death test modifies some state, but the change seems lost after the death test finishes. Why? + +Death tests (`EXPECT_DEATH`, etc) are executed in a sub-process s.t. the +expected crash won't kill the test program (i.e. the parent process). As a +result, any in-memory side effects they incur are observable in their respective +sub-processes, but not in the parent process. You can think of them as running +in a parallel universe, more or less. + +In particular, if you use mocking and the death test statement invokes some mock +methods, the parent process will think the calls have never occurred. Therefore, +you may want to move your `EXPECT_CALL` statements inside the `EXPECT_DEATH` +macro. + +## EXPECT_EQ(htonl(blah), blah_blah) generates weird compiler errors in opt mode. Is this a googletest bug? + +Actually, the bug is in `htonl()`. + +According to `'man htonl'`, `htonl()` is a *function*, which means it's valid to +use `htonl` as a function pointer. However, in opt mode `htonl()` is defined as +a *macro*, which breaks this usage. + +Worse, the macro definition of `htonl()` uses a `gcc` extension and is *not* +standard C++. That hacky implementation has some ad hoc limitations. In +particular, it prevents you from writing `Foo()`, where `Foo` +is a template that has an integral argument. + +The implementation of `EXPECT_EQ(a, b)` uses `sizeof(... a ...)` inside a +template argument, and thus doesn't compile in opt mode when `a` contains a call +to `htonl()`. It is difficult to make `EXPECT_EQ` bypass the `htonl()` bug, as +the solution must work with different compilers on various platforms. + +## The compiler complains about "undefined references" to some static const member variables, but I did define them in the class body. What's wrong? + +If your class has a static data member: + +```c++ +// foo.h +class Foo { + ... + static const int kBar = 100; +}; +``` + +You also need to define it *outside* of the class body in `foo.cc`: + +```c++ +const int Foo::kBar; // No initializer here. +``` + +Otherwise your code is **invalid C++**, and may break in unexpected ways. In +particular, using it in googletest comparison assertions (`EXPECT_EQ`, etc) will +generate an "undefined reference" linker error. The fact that "it used to work" +doesn't mean it's valid. It just means that you were lucky. :-) + +If the declaration of the static data member is `constexpr` then it is +implicitly an `inline` definition, and a separate definition in `foo.cc` is not +needed: + +```c++ +// foo.h +class Foo { + ... + static constexpr int kBar = 100; // Defines kBar, no need to do it in foo.cc. +}; +``` + +## Can I derive a test fixture from another? + +Yes. + +Each test fixture has a corresponding and same named test suite. This means only +one test suite can use a particular fixture. Sometimes, however, multiple test +cases may want to use the same or slightly different fixtures. For example, you +may want to make sure that all of a GUI library's test suites don't leak +important system resources like fonts and brushes. + +In googletest, you share a fixture among test suites by putting the shared logic +in a base test fixture, then deriving from that base a separate fixture for each +test suite that wants to use this common logic. You then use `TEST_F()` to write +tests using each derived fixture. + +Typically, your code looks like this: + +```c++ +// Defines a base test fixture. +class BaseTest : public ::testing::Test { + protected: + ... +}; + +// Derives a fixture FooTest from BaseTest. +class FooTest : public BaseTest { + protected: + void SetUp() override { + BaseTest::SetUp(); // Sets up the base fixture first. + ... additional set-up work ... + } + + void TearDown() override { + ... clean-up work for FooTest ... + BaseTest::TearDown(); // Remember to tear down the base fixture + // after cleaning up FooTest! + } + + ... functions and variables for FooTest ... +}; + +// Tests that use the fixture FooTest. +TEST_F(FooTest, Bar) { ... } +TEST_F(FooTest, Baz) { ... } + +... additional fixtures derived from BaseTest ... +``` + +If necessary, you can continue to derive test fixtures from a derived fixture. +googletest has no limit on how deep the hierarchy can be. + +For a complete example using derived test fixtures, see +[sample5_unittest.cc](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc). + +## My compiler complains "void value not ignored as it ought to be." What does this mean? + +You're probably using an `ASSERT_*()` in a function that doesn't return `void`. +`ASSERT_*()` can only be used in `void` functions, due to exceptions being +disabled by our build system. Please see more details +[here](advanced.md#assertion-placement). + +## My death test hangs (or seg-faults). How do I fix it? + +In googletest, death tests are run in a child process and the way they work is +delicate. To write death tests you really need to understand how they work—see +the details at [Death Assertions](reference/assertions.md#death) in the +Assertions Reference. + +In particular, death tests don't like having multiple threads in the parent +process. So the first thing you can try is to eliminate creating threads outside +of `EXPECT_DEATH()`. For example, you may want to use mocks or fake objects +instead of real ones in your tests. + +Sometimes this is impossible as some library you must use may be creating +threads before `main()` is even reached. In this case, you can try to minimize +the chance of conflicts by either moving as many activities as possible inside +`EXPECT_DEATH()` (in the extreme case, you want to move everything inside), or +leaving as few things as possible in it. Also, you can try to set the death test +style to `"threadsafe"`, which is safer but slower, and see if it helps. + +If you go with thread-safe death tests, remember that they rerun the test +program from the beginning in the child process. Therefore make sure your +program can run side-by-side with itself and is deterministic. + +In the end, this boils down to good concurrent programming. You have to make +sure that there are no race conditions or deadlocks in your program. No silver +bullet - sorry! + +## Should I use the constructor/destructor of the test fixture or SetUp()/TearDown()? {#CtorVsSetUp} + +The first thing to remember is that googletest does **not** reuse the same test +fixture object across multiple tests. For each `TEST_F`, googletest will create +a **fresh** test fixture object, immediately call `SetUp()`, run the test body, +call `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture object. + +When you need to write per-test set-up and tear-down logic, you have the choice +between using the test fixture constructor/destructor or `SetUp()/TearDown()`. +The former is usually preferred, as it has the following benefits: + +* By initializing a member variable in the constructor, we have the option to + make it `const`, which helps prevent accidental changes to its value and + makes the tests more obviously correct. +* In case we need to subclass the test fixture class, the subclass' + constructor is guaranteed to call the base class' constructor *first*, and + the subclass' destructor is guaranteed to call the base class' destructor + *afterward*. With `SetUp()/TearDown()`, a subclass may make the mistake of + forgetting to call the base class' `SetUp()/TearDown()` or call them at the + wrong time. + +You may still want to use `SetUp()/TearDown()` in the following cases: + +* C++ does not allow virtual function calls in constructors and destructors. + You can call a method declared as virtual, but it will not use dynamic + dispatch, it will use the definition from the class the constructor of which + is currently executing. This is because calling a virtual method before the + derived class constructor has a chance to run is very dangerous - the + virtual method might operate on uninitialized data. Therefore, if you need + to call a method that will be overridden in a derived class, you have to use + `SetUp()/TearDown()`. +* In the body of a constructor (or destructor), it's not possible to use the + `ASSERT_xx` macros. Therefore, if the set-up operation could cause a fatal + test failure that should prevent the test from running, it's necessary to + use `abort` and abort the whole test + executable, or to use `SetUp()` instead of a constructor. +* If the tear-down operation could throw an exception, you must use + `TearDown()` as opposed to the destructor, as throwing in a destructor leads + to undefined behavior and usually will kill your program right away. Note + that many standard libraries (like STL) may throw when exceptions are + enabled in the compiler. Therefore you should prefer `TearDown()` if you + want to write portable tests that work with or without exceptions. +* The googletest team is considering making the assertion macros throw on + platforms where exceptions are enabled (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux + client-side), which will eliminate the need for the user to propagate + failures from a subroutine to its caller. Therefore, you shouldn't use + googletest assertions in a destructor if your code could run on such a + platform. + +## The compiler complains "no matching function to call" when I use ASSERT_PRED*. How do I fix it? + +See details for [`EXPECT_PRED*`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED) in the +Assertions Reference. + +## My compiler complains about "ignoring return value" when I call RUN_ALL_TESTS(). Why? + +Some people had been ignoring the return value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`. That is, +instead of + +```c++ + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +``` + +they write + +```c++ + RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +``` + +This is **wrong and dangerous**. The testing services needs to see the return +value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` in order to determine if a test has passed. If your +`main()` function ignores it, your test will be considered successful even if it +has a googletest assertion failure. Very bad. + +We have decided to fix this (thanks to Michael Chastain for the idea). Now, your +code will no longer be able to ignore `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` when compiled with +`gcc`. If you do so, you'll get a compiler error. + +If you see the compiler complaining about you ignoring the return value of +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, the fix is simple: just make sure its value is used as the +return value of `main()`. + +But how could we introduce a change that breaks existing tests? Well, in this +case, the code was already broken in the first place, so we didn't break it. :-) + +## My compiler complains that a constructor (or destructor) cannot return a value. What's going on? + +Due to a peculiarity of C++, in order to support the syntax for streaming +messages to an `ASSERT_*`, e.g. + +```c++ + ASSERT_EQ(1, Foo()) << "blah blah" << foo; +``` + +we had to give up using `ASSERT*` and `FAIL*` (but not `EXPECT*` and +`ADD_FAILURE*`) in constructors and destructors. The workaround is to move the +content of your constructor/destructor to a private void member function, or +switch to `EXPECT_*()` if that works. This +[section](advanced.md#assertion-placement) in the user's guide explains it. + +## My SetUp() function is not called. Why? + +C++ is case-sensitive. Did you spell it as `Setup()`? + +Similarly, sometimes people spell `SetUpTestSuite()` as `SetupTestSuite()` and +wonder why it's never called. + + +## I have several test suites which share the same test fixture logic, do I have to define a new test fixture class for each of them? This seems pretty tedious. + +You don't have to. Instead of + +```c++ +class FooTest : public BaseTest {}; + +TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... } +TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... } + +class BarTest : public BaseTest {}; + +TEST_F(BarTest, Abc) { ... } +TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... } +``` + +you can simply `typedef` the test fixtures: + +```c++ +typedef BaseTest FooTest; + +TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... } +TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... } + +typedef BaseTest BarTest; + +TEST_F(BarTest, Abc) { ... } +TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... } +``` + +## googletest output is buried in a whole bunch of LOG messages. What do I do? + +The googletest output is meant to be a concise and human-friendly report. If +your test generates textual output itself, it will mix with the googletest +output, making it hard to read. However, there is an easy solution to this +problem. + +Since `LOG` messages go to stderr, we decided to let googletest output go to +stdout. This way, you can easily separate the two using redirection. For +example: + +```shell +$ ./my_test > gtest_output.txt +``` + +## Why should I prefer test fixtures over global variables? + +There are several good reasons: + +1. It's likely your test needs to change the states of its global variables. + This makes it difficult to keep side effects from escaping one test and + contaminating others, making debugging difficult. By using fixtures, each + test has a fresh set of variables that's different (but with the same + names). Thus, tests are kept independent of each other. +2. Global variables pollute the global namespace. +3. Test fixtures can be reused via subclassing, which cannot be done easily + with global variables. This is useful if many test suites have something in + common. + +## What can the statement argument in ASSERT_DEATH() be? + +`ASSERT_DEATH(statement, matcher)` (or any death assertion macro) can be used +wherever *`statement`* is valid. So basically *`statement`* can be any C++ +statement that makes sense in the current context. In particular, it can +reference global and/or local variables, and can be: + +* a simple function call (often the case), +* a complex expression, or +* a compound statement. + +Some examples are shown here: + +```c++ +// A death test can be a simple function call. +TEST(MyDeathTest, FunctionCall) { + ASSERT_DEATH(Xyz(5), "Xyz failed"); +} + +// Or a complex expression that references variables and functions. +TEST(MyDeathTest, ComplexExpression) { + const bool c = Condition(); + ASSERT_DEATH((c ? Func1(0) : object2.Method("test")), + "(Func1|Method) failed"); +} + +// Death assertions can be used anywhere in a function. In +// particular, they can be inside a loop. +TEST(MyDeathTest, InsideLoop) { + // Verifies that Foo(0), Foo(1), ..., and Foo(4) all die. + for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { + EXPECT_DEATH_M(Foo(i), "Foo has \\d+ errors", + ::testing::Message() << "where i is " << i); + } +} + +// A death assertion can contain a compound statement. +TEST(MyDeathTest, CompoundStatement) { + // Verifies that at lease one of Bar(0), Bar(1), ..., and + // Bar(4) dies. + ASSERT_DEATH({ + for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { + Bar(i); + } + }, + "Bar has \\d+ errors"); +} +``` + +## I have a fixture class `FooTest`, but `TEST_F(FooTest, Bar)` gives me error ``"no matching function for call to `FooTest::FooTest()'"``. Why? + +Googletest needs to be able to create objects of your test fixture class, so it +must have a default constructor. Normally the compiler will define one for you. +However, there are cases where you have to define your own: + +* If you explicitly declare a non-default constructor for class `FooTest` + (`DISALLOW_EVIL_CONSTRUCTORS()` does this), then you need to define a + default constructor, even if it would be empty. +* If `FooTest` has a const non-static data member, then you have to define the + default constructor *and* initialize the const member in the initializer + list of the constructor. (Early versions of `gcc` doesn't force you to + initialize the const member. It's a bug that has been fixed in `gcc 4`.) + +## Why does ASSERT_DEATH complain about previous threads that were already joined? + +With the Linux pthread library, there is no turning back once you cross the line +from a single thread to multiple threads. The first time you create a thread, a +manager thread is created in addition, so you get 3, not 2, threads. Later when +the thread you create joins the main thread, the thread count decrements by 1, +but the manager thread will never be killed, so you still have 2 threads, which +means you cannot safely run a death test. + +The new NPTL thread library doesn't suffer from this problem, as it doesn't +create a manager thread. However, if you don't control which machine your test +runs on, you shouldn't depend on this. + +## Why does googletest require the entire test suite, instead of individual tests, to be named *DeathTest when it uses ASSERT_DEATH? + +googletest does not interleave tests from different test suites. That is, it +runs all tests in one test suite first, and then runs all tests in the next test +suite, and so on. googletest does this because it needs to set up a test suite +before the first test in it is run, and tear it down afterwards. Splitting up +the test case would require multiple set-up and tear-down processes, which is +inefficient and makes the semantics unclean. + +If we were to determine the order of tests based on test name instead of test +case name, then we would have a problem with the following situation: + +```c++ +TEST_F(FooTest, AbcDeathTest) { ... } +TEST_F(FooTest, Uvw) { ... } + +TEST_F(BarTest, DefDeathTest) { ... } +TEST_F(BarTest, Xyz) { ... } +``` + +Since `FooTest.AbcDeathTest` needs to run before `BarTest.Xyz`, and we don't +interleave tests from different test suites, we need to run all tests in the +`FooTest` case before running any test in the `BarTest` case. This contradicts +with the requirement to run `BarTest.DefDeathTest` before `FooTest.Uvw`. + +## But I don't like calling my entire test suite \*DeathTest when it contains both death tests and non-death tests. What do I do? + +You don't have to, but if you like, you may split up the test suite into +`FooTest` and `FooDeathTest`, where the names make it clear that they are +related: + +```c++ +class FooTest : public ::testing::Test { ... }; + +TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... } +TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... } + +using FooDeathTest = FooTest; + +TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Uvw) { ... EXPECT_DEATH(...) ... } +TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Xyz) { ... ASSERT_DEATH(...) ... } +``` + +## googletest prints the LOG messages in a death test's child process only when the test fails. How can I see the LOG messages when the death test succeeds? + +Printing the LOG messages generated by the statement inside `EXPECT_DEATH()` +makes it harder to search for real problems in the parent's log. Therefore, +googletest only prints them when the death test has failed. + +If you really need to see such LOG messages, a workaround is to temporarily +break the death test (e.g. by changing the regex pattern it is expected to +match). Admittedly, this is a hack. We'll consider a more permanent solution +after the fork-and-exec-style death tests are implemented. + +## The compiler complains about `no match for 'operator<<'` when I use an assertion. What gives? + +If you use a user-defined type `FooType` in an assertion, you must make sure +there is an `std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&, const FooType&)` function +defined such that we can print a value of `FooType`. + +In addition, if `FooType` is declared in a name space, the `<<` operator also +needs to be defined in the *same* name space. See +[Tip of the Week #49](http://abseil.io/tips/49) for details. + +## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows? + +Since the statically initialized googletest singleton requires allocations on +the heap, the Visual C++ memory leak detector will report memory leaks at the +end of the program run. The easiest way to avoid this is to use the +`_CrtMemCheckpoint` and `_CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince` calls to not report any +statically initialized heap objects. See MSDN for more details and additional +heap check/debug routines. + +## How can my code detect if it is running in a test? + +If you write code that sniffs whether it's running in a test and does different +things accordingly, you are leaking test-only logic into production code and +there is no easy way to ensure that the test-only code paths aren't run by +mistake in production. Such cleverness also leads to +[Heisenbugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug). Therefore we strongly +advise against the practice, and googletest doesn't provide a way to do it. + +In general, the recommended way to cause the code to behave differently under +test is [Dependency Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection). You can inject +different functionality from the test and from the production code. Since your +production code doesn't link in the for-test logic at all (the +[`testonly`](http://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#common.testonly) attribute for BUILD targets helps to ensure +that), there is no danger in accidentally running it. + +However, if you *really*, *really*, *really* have no choice, and if you follow +the rule of ending your test program names with `_test`, you can use the +*horrible* hack of sniffing your executable name (`argv[0]` in `main()`) to know +whether the code is under test. + +## How do I temporarily disable a test? + +If you have a broken test that you cannot fix right away, you can add the +`DISABLED_` prefix to its name. This will exclude it from execution. This is +better than commenting out the code or using `#if 0`, as disabled tests are +still compiled (and thus won't rot). + +To include disabled tests in test execution, just invoke the test program with +the `--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests` flag. + +## Is it OK if I have two separate `TEST(Foo, Bar)` test methods defined in different namespaces? + +Yes. + +The rule is **all test methods in the same test suite must use the same fixture +class.** This means that the following is **allowed** because both tests use the +same fixture class (`::testing::Test`). + +```c++ +namespace foo { +TEST(CoolTest, DoSomething) { + SUCCEED(); +} +} // namespace foo + +namespace bar { +TEST(CoolTest, DoSomething) { + SUCCEED(); +} +} // namespace bar +``` + +However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error +from googletest because the test methods are using different test fixture +classes with the same test suite name. + +```c++ +namespace foo { +class CoolTest : public ::testing::Test {}; // Fixture foo::CoolTest +TEST_F(CoolTest, DoSomething) { + SUCCEED(); +} +} // namespace foo + +namespace bar { +class CoolTest : public ::testing::Test {}; // Fixture: bar::CoolTest +TEST_F(CoolTest, DoSomething) { + SUCCEED(); +} +} // namespace bar +``` diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..17ed7a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +# gMock Cheat Sheet + +## Defining a Mock Class + +### Mocking a Normal Class {#MockClass} + +Given + +```cpp +class Foo { + ... + virtual ~Foo(); + virtual int GetSize() const = 0; + virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0; + virtual string Describe(int type) = 0; + virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0; +}; +``` + +(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as + +```cpp +#include "gmock/gmock.h" + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (const, override)); + MOCK_METHOD(string, Describe, (const char* name), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(string, Describe, (int type), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Process, (Bar elem, int count), (override)); +}; +``` + +To create a "nice" mock, which ignores all uninteresting calls, a "naggy" mock, +which warns on all uninteresting calls, or a "strict" mock, which treats them as +failures: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NiceMock; +using ::testing::NaggyMock; +using ::testing::StrictMock; + +NiceMock nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. +NaggyMock naggy_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. +StrictMock strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. +``` + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** A mock object is currently naggy by default. We may make it nice by +default in the future. + +### Mocking a Class Template {#MockTemplate} + +Class templates can be mocked just like any class. + +To mock + +```cpp +template +class StackInterface { + ... + virtual ~StackInterface(); + virtual int GetSize() const = 0; + virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; +}; +``` + +(note that all member functions that are mocked, including `~StackInterface()` +**must** be virtual). + +```cpp +template +class MockStack : public StackInterface { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (const, override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override)); +}; +``` + +### Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions + +If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you can +specify it by adding `Calltype(convention)` to `MOCK_METHOD`'s 4th parameter. +For example, + +```cpp + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int n), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE))); + MOCK_METHOD(int, Bar, (double x, double y), + (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE))); +``` + +where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `` on Windows. + +## Using Mocks in Tests {#UsingMocks} + +The typical work flow is: + +1. Import the gMock names you need to use. All gMock symbols are in the + `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted. +2. Create the mock objects. +3. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects. +4. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What + will they do?). +5. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result + using googletest assertions. +6. When a mock object is destructed, gMock automatically verifies that all + expectations on it have been satisfied. + +Here's an example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; // #1 + +TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) { + MockFoo foo; // #2 + + ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3 + .WillByDefault(Return(1)); + // ... other default actions ... + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4 + .Times(3) + .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5")); + // ... other expectations ... + + EXPECT_EQ(MyProductionFunction(&foo), "good"); // #5 +} // #6 +``` + +## Setting Default Actions {#OnCall} + +gMock has a **built-in default action** for any function that returns `void`, +`bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. In C++11, it will additionally returns +the default-constructed value, if one exists for the given type. + +To customize the default action for functions with return type `T`, use +[`DefaultValue`](reference/mocking.md#DefaultValue). For example: + +```cpp + // Sets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr to + // creating a new Buzz every time. + DefaultValue>::SetFactory( + [] { return MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal); }); + + // When this fires, the default action of MakeBuzz() will run, which + // will return a new Buzz object. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello")).Times(AnyNumber()); + + auto buzz1 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"); + auto buzz2 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"); + EXPECT_NE(buzz1, nullptr); + EXPECT_NE(buzz2, nullptr); + EXPECT_NE(buzz1, buzz2); + + // Resets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr, + // to avoid interfere with other tests. + DefaultValue>::Clear(); +``` + +To customize the default action for a particular method of a specific mock +object, use [`ON_CALL`](reference/mocking.md#ON_CALL). `ON_CALL` has a similar +syntax to `EXPECT_CALL`, but it is used for setting default behaviors when you +do not require that the mock method is called. See +[Knowing When to Expect](gmock_cook_book.md#UseOnCall) for a more detailed +discussion. + +## Setting Expectations {#ExpectCall} + +See [`EXPECT_CALL`](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL) in the Mocking Reference. + +## Matchers {#MatcherList} + +See the [Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md). + +## Actions {#ActionList} + +See the [Actions Reference](reference/actions.md). + +## Cardinalities {#CardinalityList} + +See the [`Times` clause](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL.Times) of +`EXPECT_CALL` in the Mocking Reference. + +## Expectation Order + +By default, expectations can be matched in *any* order. If some or all +expectations must be matched in a given order, you can use the +[`After` clause](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL.After) or +[`InSequence` clause](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL.InSequence) of +`EXPECT_CALL`, or use an [`InSequence` object](reference/mocking.md#InSequence). + +## Verifying and Resetting a Mock + +gMock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or +you can do it earlier: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Mock; +... +// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; +// returns true if and only if successful. +Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj); +... +// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; +// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL(); +// returns true if and only if successful. +Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj); +``` + +Do not set new expectations after verifying and clearing a mock after its use. +Setting expectations after code that exercises the mock has undefined behavior. +See [Using Mocks in Tests](gmock_for_dummies.md#using-mocks-in-tests) for more +information. + +You can also tell gMock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't need to be +verified: + +```cpp +Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj); +``` + +## Mock Classes + +gMock defines a convenient mock class template + +```cpp +class MockFunction { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(R, Call, (A1, ..., An)); +}; +``` + +See this [recipe](gmock_cook_book.md#using-check-points) for one application of +it. + +## Flags + +| Flag | Description | +| :----------------------------- | :---------------------------------------- | +| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. | +| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. | diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cook_book.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cook_book.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c08958e --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_cook_book.md @@ -0,0 +1,4301 @@ +# gMock Cookbook + +You can find recipes for using gMock here. If you haven't yet, please read +[the dummy guide](gmock_for_dummies.md) first to make sure you understand the +basics. + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** gMock lives in the `testing` name space. For readability, it is +recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in your file before using the +name `Foo` defined by gMock. We omit such `using` statements in this section for +brevity, but you should do it in your own code. + +## Creating Mock Classes + +Mock classes are defined as normal classes, using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro to +generate mocked methods. The macro gets 3 or 4 parameters: + +```cpp +class MyMock { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...)); + MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...), (Specs...)); +}; +``` + +The first 3 parameters are simply the method declaration, split into 3 parts. +The 4th parameter accepts a closed list of qualifiers, which affect the +generated method: + +* **`const`** - Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if + overriding a `const` method. +* **`override`** - Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding + a `virtual` method. +* **`noexcept`** - Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a + `noexcept` method. +* **`Calltype(...)`** - Sets the call type for the method (e.g. to + `STDMETHODCALLTYPE`), useful in Windows. +* **`ref(...)`** - Marks the method with the reference qualification + specified. Required if overriding a method that has reference + qualifications. Eg `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`. + +### Dealing with unprotected commas + +Unprotected commas, i.e. commas which are not surrounded by parentheses, prevent +`MOCK_METHOD` from parsing its arguments correctly: + +{: .bad} +```cpp +class MockFoo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(std::pair, GetPair, ()); // Won't compile! + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map, bool)); // Won't compile! +}; +``` + +Solution 1 - wrap with parentheses: + +{: .good} +```cpp +class MockFoo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD((std::pair), GetPair, ()); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map), bool)); +}; +``` + +Note that wrapping a return or argument type with parentheses is, in general, +invalid C++. `MOCK_METHOD` removes the parentheses. + +Solution 2 - define an alias: + +{: .good} +```cpp +class MockFoo { + public: + using BoolAndInt = std::pair; + MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ()); + using MapIntDouble = std::map; + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool)); +}; +``` + +### Mocking Private or Protected Methods + +You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD`) in a `public:` +section of the mock class, regardless of the method being mocked being `public`, +`protected`, or `private` in the base class. This allows `ON_CALL` and +`EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function from outside of the mock class. +(Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change the access level of a virtual function in +the base class.) Example: + +```cpp +class Foo { + public: + ... + virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0; + + protected: + virtual void Resume(); + + private: + virtual int GetTimeOut(); +}; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + ... + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override)); + + // The following must be in the public section, even though the + // methods are protected or private in the base class. + MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override)); +}; +``` + +### Mocking Overloaded Methods + +You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required: + +```cpp +class Foo { + ... + + // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo. + virtual ~Foo(); + + // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments. + virtual int Add(Element x); + virtual int Add(int times, Element x); + + // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object. + virtual Bar& GetBar(); + virtual const Bar& GetBar() const; +}; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override)); + + MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override)); +}; +``` + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the compiler +will give you a warning about some methods in the base class being hidden. To +fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope: + +```cpp +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + using Foo::Add; + MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override)); + // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x); + ... +}; +``` + +### Mocking Class Templates + +You can mock class templates just like any class. + +```cpp +template +class StackInterface { + ... + // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface. + virtual ~StackInterface(); + + virtual int GetSize() const = 0; + virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; +}; + +template +class MockStack : public StackInterface { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override)); +}; +``` + +### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods} + +gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency injection. + +In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real class, your +mock class will be *unrelated* to the real class, but contain methods with the +same signatures. The syntax for mocking non-virtual methods is the *same* as +mocking virtual methods (just don't add `override`): + +```cpp +// A simple packet stream class. None of its members is virtual. +class ConcretePacketStream { + public: + void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet); + const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const; + size_t NumberOfPackets() const; + ... +}; + +// A mock packet stream class. It inherits from no other, but defines +// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets(). +class MockPacketStream { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const)); + MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const)); + ... +}; +``` + +Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the real class. +That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it. + +Next, you need a way to say that you want to use `ConcretePacketStream` in +production code, and use `MockPacketStream` in tests. Since the functions are +not virtual and the two classes are unrelated, you must specify your choice at +*compile time* (as opposed to run time). + +One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet stream. +More specifically, you will give your code a template type argument for the type +of the packet stream. In production, you will instantiate your template with +`ConcretePacketStream` as the type argument. In tests, you will instantiate the +same template with `MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write: + +```cpp +template +void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... } + +template +class PacketReader { + public: + void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num); +}; +``` + +Then you can use `CreateConnection()` and +`PacketReader` in production code, and use +`CreateConnection()` and `PacketReader` in +tests. + +```cpp + MockPacketStream mock_stream; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...; + .. set more expectations on mock_stream ... + PacketReader reader(&mock_stream); + ... exercise reader ... +``` + +### Mocking Free Functions + +It is not possible to directly mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or +a static method). If you need to, you can rewrite your code to use an interface +(abstract class). + +Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an +interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function: + +```cpp +class FileInterface { + public: + ... + virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0; +}; + +class File : public FileInterface { + public: + ... + bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) override { + return OpenFile(path, mode); + } +}; +``` + +Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's easy to mock +out the function. + +This may seem like a lot of hassle, but in practice you often have multiple +related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the per-function +syntactic overhead will be much lower. + +If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by virtual +functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can combine this with the +recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#MockingNonVirtualMethods). + +### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros + +Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro +[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2), +mocks where created using a family of macros collectively called `MOCK_METHODn`. +These macros are still supported, though migration to the new `MOCK_METHOD` is +recommended. + +The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`: + +* The general structure is `MOCK_METHODn(MethodName, ReturnType(Args))`, + instead of `MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args))`. +* The number `n` must equal the number of arguments. +* When mocking a const method, one must use `MOCK_CONST_METHODn`. +* When mocking a class template, the macro name must be suffixed with `_T`. +* In order to specify the call type, the macro name must be suffixed with + `_WITH_CALLTYPE`, and the call type is the first macro argument. + +Old macros and their new equivalents: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Simple
OldMOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))
Const Method
OldMOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))
Method in a Class Template
OldMOCK_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))
Const Method in a Class Template
OldMOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))
Method with Call Type
OldMOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))
Const Method with Call Type
OldMOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))
Method with Call Type in a Class Template
OldMOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))
Const Method with Call Type in a Class Template
OldMOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))
NewMOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))
+ +### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy} + +If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, we say that it's an +"uninteresting call", and the default action (which can be specified using +`ON_CALL()`) of the method will be taken. Currently, an uninteresting call will +also by default cause gMock to print a warning. (In the future, we might remove +this warning by default.) + +However, sometimes you may want to ignore these uninteresting calls, and +sometimes you may want to treat them as errors. gMock lets you make the decision +on a per-mock-object basis. + +Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`: + +```cpp +TEST(...) { + MockFoo mock_foo; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); + ... code that uses mock_foo ... +} +``` + +If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, you will get a +warning. However, if you rewrite your test to use `NiceMock` instead, +you can suppress the warning: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NiceMock; + +TEST(...) { + NiceMock mock_foo; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); + ... code that uses mock_foo ... +} +``` + +`NiceMock` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever +`MockFoo` is accepted. + +It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as +`NiceMock` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NiceMock; + +TEST(...) { + NiceMock mock_foo(5, "hi"); // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi"). + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); + ... code that uses mock_foo ... +} +``` + +The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting +calls failures: + +```cpp +using ::testing::StrictMock; + +TEST(...) { + StrictMock mock_foo; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); + ... code that uses mock_foo ... + + // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() + // is called. +} +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only affects *uninteresting* calls (calls of +*methods* with no expectations); they do not affect *unexpected* calls (calls of +methods with expectations, but they don't match). See +[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](#uninteresting-vs-unexpected). + +There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s +limitations): + +1. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only work for mock methods + defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. + If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or + "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In + particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. + `NiceMock >`) is **not** supported. +2. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` may not work correctly if the + destructor of `MockFoo` is not virtual. We would like to fix this, but it + requires cleaning up existing tests. + +Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict +mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you +refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you +shouldn't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock, +however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your +change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start +to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use +nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current +default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the +last resort. + +### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces} + +Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting. +For example: + +```cpp +class LogSink { + public: + ... + virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, + const char* base_filename, int line, + const struct tm* tm_time, + const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0; +}; +``` + +This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (the `message` +argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock it as is, using the mock will be +awkward. If, however, we try to simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all +clients depending on it, which is often infeasible. + +The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class: + +```cpp +class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink { + public: + ... + void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, + const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time, + const char* message, size_t message_len) override { + // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and + // log message. + Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len)); + } + + // Implements the mock method: + // + // void Log(LogSeverity severity, + // const string& file_path, + // const string& message); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Log, + (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path, + const string& message)); +}; +``` + +By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock +class more user-friendly. + +This technique may also be applied to make overloaded methods more amenable to +mocking. For example, when overloads have been used to implement default +arguments: + +```cpp +class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory { + public: + Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... } + Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... } + + // the above methods delegate to this one: + MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ()); +}; +``` + +This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying +argument matchers: + +```cpp +ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle) + .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle())); +``` + +### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes + +Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement interfaces. In +order to test your code that uses such a class (let's call it `Concrete`), you +may be tempted to make the methods of `Concrete` virtual and then mock it. + +Try not to do that. + +Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an extension +point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This weakens your control +on the class because now it's harder to maintain the class invariants. You +should make a function virtual only when there is a valid reason for a subclass +to override it. + +Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight coupling +between the class and the tests - any small change in the class may invalidate +your tests and make test maintenance a pain. + +To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding to +interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code would define +an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that interface as an adaptor on +top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily mock that interface to observe how +your code is doing. + +This technique incurs some overhead: + +* You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem). +* There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn. + +However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better +testability: + +* `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not + be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you + have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level + functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This + allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way, + which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more + productive. +* If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite + everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your + implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be + insulated from this change. + +Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they will end +up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally understandable. +However, there are two reasons why it may not be the case: + +* Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best + interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its + own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the + same code. +* If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it, + just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface + and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib` + sub-directory) and let many projects use it. + +You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular problem, but +I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been practicing this for a +long time and it's a proven effective technique applicable in a wide variety of +situations. :-) + +### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake} + +Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For +example: + +```cpp +class Foo { + public: + virtual ~Foo() {} + virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0; + virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0; +}; + +class FakeFoo : public Foo { + public: + char DoThis(int n) override { + return (n > 0) ? '+' : + (n < 0) ? '-' : '0'; + } + + void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override { + *p = strlen(s); + } +}; +``` + +Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations on it. +However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default behavior, as duplicating +it in the mock object is, well, a lot of work. + +When you define the mock class using gMock, you can have it delegate its default +action to a fake class you already have, using this pattern: + +```cpp +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + // Normal mock method definitions using gMock. + MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override)); + + // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object. + // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements. + void DelegateToFake() { + ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) { + return fake_.DoThis(n); + }); + ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) { + fake_.DoThat(s, p); + }); + } + + private: + FakeFoo fake_; // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock. +}; +``` + +With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember that if +you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, the +fake will be called upon to do it.: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; + +TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) { + MockFoo foo; + + foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation. + + // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any. + + // No action specified, meaning to use the default action. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _)); + + int n = 0; + EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked. + foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked. + EXPECT_EQ(2, n); +} +``` + +**Some tips:** + +* If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own + `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`. +* In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake + implementation you intend to use. + +* The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but + you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a + mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`), + use [this technique](#SelectOverload); to disambiguate a fake function (the + one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the + function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int + n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter, + you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)` + (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is + the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.). + +* Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong. + Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or + perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up. + Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an + intermediate step when you are refactoring your code. + +Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on why it may +be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for low-level system +operations. In particular, it does file and I/O operations. And suppose you want +to test how your code uses `System` to do I/O, and you just want the file +operations to work normally. If you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll +have to provide a fake implementation for the file operation part, which +suggests that `System` is taking on too many roles. + +Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface and split +`System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock `IOOps` without +mocking `FileOps`. + +### Delegating Calls to a Real Object + +When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes their +behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This difference could be +either intentional (as in simulating an error such that you can test the error +handling code) or unintentional. If your mocks have different behaviors than the +real objects by mistake, you could end up with code that passes the tests but +fails in production. + +You can use the *delegating-to-real* technique to ensure that your mock has the +same behavior as the real object while retaining the ability to validate calls. +This technique is very similar to the [delegating-to-fake](#DelegatingToFake) +technique, the difference being that we use a real object instead of a fake. +Here's an example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::AtLeast; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MockFoo() { + // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object. + ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) { + return real_.DoThis(n); + }); + ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) { + real_.DoThat(s, p); + }); + ... + } + MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...); + MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...); + ... + private: + Foo real_; +}; + +... + MockFoo mock; + EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis()) + .Times(3); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi")) + .Times(AtLeast(1)); + ... use mock in test ... +``` + +With this, gMock will verify that your code made the right calls (with the right +arguments, in the right order, called the right number of times, etc), and a +real object will answer the calls (so the behavior will be the same as in +production). This gives you the best of both worlds. + +### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class + +Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure virtual. In +reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method that is not pure (i.e, +it already has an implementation). For example: + +```cpp +class Foo { + public: + virtual ~Foo(); + + virtual void Pure(int n) = 0; + virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... } +}; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + // Mocking a pure method. + MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override)); + // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. + MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override)); +}; +``` + +Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of +`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub action, or +perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all (but it would be +oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class whenever you don't need to mock +one of its methods). + +You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by: + +```cpp +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) { + return foo.Foo::Concrete(str); + }); +``` + +or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`: + +```cpp +... + ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) { + return foo.Foo::Concrete(str); + }); +``` + +(Why don't we just write `{ return foo.Concrete(str); }`? If you do that, +`MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite recursion) since +`Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ works.) + +## Using Matchers + +### Matching Argument Values Exactly + +You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)) + .WillOnce(Return('a')); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar)); +``` + +### Using Simple Matchers + +You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NotNull; +using ::testing::Return; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5))) // The argument must be >= 5. + .WillOnce(Return('a')); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull())); + // The second argument must not be NULL. +``` + +A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything: + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull())); +``` + +### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers} + +You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`, +`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`: + +```cpp +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::Gt; +using ::testing::HasSubstr; +using ::testing::Ne; +using ::testing::Not; +... + // The argument must be > 5 and != 10. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5), + Ne(10)))); + + // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah". + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")), + NULL)); +``` + +Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just +like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely +provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14 +generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::Contains; +using ::testing::Property; + +inline constexpr auto HasFoo = [](const auto& f) { + return Property(&MyClass::foo, Contains(f)); +}; +... + EXPECT_THAT(x, HasFoo("blah")); +``` + +### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast} + +gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your +mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for example, if you use `Eq(5)` +to match a `string` argument). Good for you! + +Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler to give you +some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for `long` and the argument +you want to match is `int`. While the two types aren't exactly the same, there +is nothing really wrong with using a `Matcher` to match an `int` - after +all, we can first convert the `int` argument to a `long` losslessly before +giving it to the matcher. + +To support this need, gMock gives you the `SafeMatcherCast(m)` function. It +casts a matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. To ensure safety, gMock checks that +(let `U` be the type `m` accepts : + +1. Type `T` can be *implicitly* cast to type `U`; +2. When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and + floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in + other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`); + and +3. When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying + matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value). + +The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met. + +Here's one example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; + +// A base class and a child class. +class Base { ... }; +class Derived : public Base { ... }; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override)); +}; + +... + MockFoo foo; + // m is a Matcher we got from somewhere. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast(m))); +``` + +If you find `SafeMatcherCast(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar function +`MatcherCast(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works as long as you +can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`. + +`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system (`static_cast` isn't +always safe as it could throw away information, for example), so be careful not +to misuse/abuse it. + +### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload} + +If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some +help on which overloaded version it is. + +To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the +`Const()` argument wrapper. + +```cpp +using ::testing::ReturnRef; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override)); +}; + +... + MockFoo foo; + Bar bar1, bar2; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) // The non-const GetBar(). + .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1)); + EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar()) // The const GetBar(). + .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2)); +``` + +(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.) + +To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments but +different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type of a matcher, +either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher()`, or using a matcher whose +type is fixed (`TypedEq`, `An()`, etc): + +```cpp +using ::testing::An; +using ::testing::Matcher; +using ::testing::TypedEq; + +class MockPrinter : public Printer { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override)); +}; + +TEST(PrinterTest, Print) { + MockPrinter printer; + + EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An())); // void Print(int); + EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher(Lt(5)))); // void Print(int); + EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq('a'))); // void Print(char); + + printer.Print(3); + printer.Print(6); + printer.Print('a'); +} +``` + +### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments + +When a mock method is called, the *last* matching expectation that's still +active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you can make a +method do different things depending on its argument values like this: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Lt; +using ::testing::Return; +... + // The default case. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_)) + .WillRepeatedly(Return('b')); + // The more specific case. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5))) + .WillRepeatedly(Return('a')); +``` + +Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be +returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned. + +### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole + +Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For example, we +may want to say that the first argument must be less than the second argument. +The `With()` clause allows us to match all arguments of a mock function as a +whole. For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Ne; +using ::testing::Lt; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _)) + .With(Lt()); +``` + +says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than +the second argument. + +The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type `Matcher>`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the types of the function arguments. + +You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The two forms +are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable than `.With(Lt())`. + +You can use `Args(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a +tuple) against `m`. For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::Args; +using ::testing::Lt; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah) + .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt()))); +``` + +says that `Blah` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where `x < y < +z`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary specify the positional +matchers. + +As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples, +including the `Lt()` matcher above. See +[Multi-argument Matchers](reference/matchers.md#MultiArgMatchers) for the +complete list. + +Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own (e.g. +`.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be written to +take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments +as *one* single tuple to the predicate. + +### Using Matchers as Predicates + +Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also knows how to +describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates as arguments (e.g. +those defined in STL's `` header), and it would be a shame if gMock +matchers were not allowed to participate. + +Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by +wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example, + +```cpp +#include +#include + +using ::testing::Matches; +using ::testing::Ge; + +vector v; +... +// How many elements in v are >= 10? +const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10))); +``` + +Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using gMock, this +gives you a way to conveniently construct composite predicates (doing the same +using STL's `` header is just painful). For example, here's a +predicate that's satisfied by any number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50: + +```cpp +using testing::AllOf; +using testing::Ge; +using testing::Le; +using testing::Matches; +using testing::Ne; +... +Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50))) +``` + +### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions + +See [`EXPECT_THAT`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_THAT) in the Assertions +Reference. + +### Using Predicates as Matchers + +gMock provides a set of built-in matchers for matching arguments with expected +values—see the [Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md) for more information. +In case you find the built-in set lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary +predicate function or functor as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a +value of the type you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the +`Truly()` function, for example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Truly; + +int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; } +... + // Bar() must be called with an even number. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven))); +``` + +Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return `bool`. It +works as long as the return value can be used as the condition in in statement +`if (condition) ...`. + +### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable + +When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, gMock saves away a copy of +`bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, gMock compares the argument to `Foo()` with +the saved copy of `bar`. This way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being +modified or destroyed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true +when you use matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on. + +But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You could +define your own matcher function or callback and use it with `Truly()`, as the +previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get away from it +if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is +executed. Just tell gMock that it should save a reference to `bar`, instead of a +copy of it. Here's how: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Eq; +using ::testing::Lt; +... + // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar)))); + + // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar)))); +``` + +Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the +result is undefined. + +### Validating a Member of an Object + +Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When matching +the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object against a fixed +object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, you may need to validate a +certain member variable or the result of a certain getter method of the object. +You can do this with `Field()` and `Property()`. More specifically, + +```cpp +Field(&Foo::bar, m) +``` + +is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies +matcher `m`. + +```cpp +Property(&Foo::baz, m) +``` + +is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value +that satisfies matcher `m`. + +For example: + +| Expression | Description | +| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- | +| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. | +| `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. | + +Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument +and be declared as `const`. Don't use `Property()` against member functions that +you do not own, because taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally +not part of the contract of the function. + +`Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For +instance, + +```cpp +using ::testing::Field; +using ::testing::Ge; +... +Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) +``` + +matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, the match +will always fail regardless of the inner matcher. + +What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? Remember +that there are [`AllOf()` and `AllOfArray()`](#CombiningMatchers). + +Finally `Field()` and `Property()` provide overloads that take the field or +property names as the first argument to include it in the error message. This +can be useful when creating combined matchers. + +```cpp +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::Field; +using ::testing::Matcher; +using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; + +Matcher IsFoo(const Foo& foo) { + return AllOf(Field("some_field", &Foo::some_field, foo.some_field), + Field("other_field", &Foo::other_field, foo.other_field), + Field("last_field", &Foo::last_field, foo.last_field)); +} +``` + +### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument + +C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers like +`IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a pointer, but +what if you want to make sure the value *pointed to* by the pointer, instead of +the pointer itself, has a certain property? Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)` +matcher. + +`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer +points to. For example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Ge; +using ::testing::Pointee; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3)))); +``` + +expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater +than or equal to 3. + +One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match +failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of + +```cpp +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::NotNull; +using ::testing::Pointee; +... + AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m)) +``` + +without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test. + +Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and** +smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)? + +What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use nested +`Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example, +`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer that points +to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...). + +### Testing a Certain Property of an Object + +Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain property, +but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want good error +messages, you should [define a matcher](#NewMatchers). If you want to do it +quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function. + +Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, which has +an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you want to constrain that +the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` value is a given number. Here's +how you can define a matcher to do it: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Matcher; + +class BarPlusBazEqMatcher { + public: + explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum) + : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {} + + bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo, + std::ostream* /* listener */) const { + return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_; + } + + void DescribeTo(std::ostream& os) const { + os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_; + } + + void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream& os) const { + os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_; + } + private: + const int expected_sum_; +}; + +Matcher BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) { + return BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum); +} + +... + EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...; +``` + +### Matching Containers + +Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to a mock +function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL containers support the +`==` operator, you can write `Eq(expected_container)` or simply +`expected_container` to match a container exactly. + +Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the first +element must be an exact match, but the second element can be any positive +number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often have a small number of +elements, and having to define the expected container out-of-line is a bit of a +hassle. + +You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such +cases: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::ElementsAre; +using ::testing::Gt; +... + MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector& numbers), (override)); +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); +``` + +The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1, +greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. + +If you instead write: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Gt; +using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre; +... + MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector& numbers), (override)); +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); +``` + +It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation) +must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. + +As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use +`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead: + +```cpp +using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; +... + // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values. + const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...}; + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1))); + + // Or, an array of element matchers. + Matcher expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...}; + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2))); +``` + +In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the array size +cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give `ElementsAreArray()` an +additional argument to specify the array size: + +```cpp +using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; +... + int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count]; + ... fill expected_vector3 with values ... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count))); +``` + +Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers. + +{% raw %} + +```cpp +using testing::ElementsAre; +using testing::Pair; +... + std::map m = {{"a", 1}, {"b", 2}, {"c", 3}}; + EXPECT_THAT(m, ElementsAre(Pair("a", 1), Pair("b", 2), Pair("c", 3))); +``` + +{% endraw %} + +**Tips:** + +* `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match *any* container that implements the + STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports + `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with + container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above + pattern. +* You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional) + containers. +* If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write + `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`. +* The order of elements *matters* for `ElementsAre*()`. If you are using it + with containers whose element order are undefined (e.g. `hash_map`) you + should use `WhenSorted` around `ElementsAre`. + +### Sharing Matchers + +Under the hood, a gMock matcher object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted +implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and very efficient, as only +the pointer is copied. When the last matcher that references the implementation +object dies, the implementation object will be deleted. + +Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again and +again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a matcher +variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::Gt; +using ::testing::Le; +using ::testing::Matcher; +... + Matcher in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10)); + ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ... +``` + +### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers} + +{: .callout .warning} +WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be +invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be *purely functional*: they cannot have +any side effects, and the match result must not depend on anything other than +the matcher's parameters and the value being matched. + +This requirement must be satisfied no matter how a matcher is defined (e.g., if +it is one of the standard matchers, or a custom matcher). In particular, a +matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the +mock object and gMock. + +## Setting Expectations + +### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall} + +**`ON_CALL`** is likely the *single most under-utilized construct* in gMock. + +There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object: +`ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when +a mock method is called, but doesn't imply any expectation on the method +being called. `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an +expectation that the method will be called with the given arguments, for the +given number of times (and *in the given order* when you specify the order +too). + +Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every +`EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having +more constraints than necessary is *baaad* - even worse than not having enough +constraints. + +This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than +tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests? + +The answer lies in *what* a test should verify. **A good test verifies the +contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough +freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without +breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be +perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing +them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed. + +Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test. +In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do +that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which +case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests +descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's +wrong just from the test log itself. + +So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend +to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s +in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the +same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s +to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style +where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more +resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require +maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier +to maintain when you do need to maintain them). + +If you are bothered by the "Uninteresting mock function call" message printed +when a mock method without an `EXPECT_CALL` is called, you may use a `NiceMock` +instead to suppress all such messages for the mock object, or suppress the +message for specific methods by adding `EXPECT_CALL(...).Times(AnyNumber())`. DO +NOT suppress it by blindly adding an `EXPECT_CALL(...)`, or you'll have a test +that's a pain to maintain. + +### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls + +If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't say +anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, gMock will +perform its default action to allow the test program to continue. If you are not +happy with the default action taken by gMock, you can override it using +`DefaultValue::Set()` (described [here](#DefaultValue)) or `ON_CALL()`. + +Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock method (via +`EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some expectation. If this +function is called but the arguments don't match any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement, +it will be an error. + +### Disallowing Unexpected Calls + +If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .Times(0); +``` + +If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the +expected calls: + +```cpp +using ::testing::AnyNumber; +using ::testing::Gt; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10))) + .Times(AnyNumber()); +``` + +A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements +will be an error. + +### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected} + +*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock. +*Very* different. + +A call `x.Y(...)` is **uninteresting** if there's *not even a single* +`EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))` set. In other words, the test isn't interested in the +`x.Y()` method at all, as evident in that the test doesn't care to say anything +about it. + +A call `x.Y(...)` is **unexpected** if there are *some* `EXPECT_CALL(x, +Y(...))`s set, but none of them matches the call. Put another way, the test is +interested in the `x.Y()` method (therefore it explicitly sets some +`EXPECT_CALL` to verify how it's called); however, the verification fails as the +test doesn't expect this particular call to happen. + +**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave +the way the test expects it to behave. + +**By default, an uninteresting call is not an error,** as it violates no +constraint specified by the test. (gMock's philosophy is that saying nothing +means there is no constraint.) However, it leads to a warning, as it *might* +indicate a problem (e.g. the test author might have forgotten to specify a +constraint). + +In gMock, `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` can be used to make a mock class "nice" or +"strict". How does this affect uninteresting calls and unexpected calls? + +A **nice mock** suppresses uninteresting call *warnings*. It is less chatty than +the default mock, but otherwise is the same. If a test fails with a default +mock, it will also fail using a nice mock instead. And vice versa. Don't expect +making a mock nice to change the test's result. + +A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a +mock strict may change the test's result. + +Let's look at an example: + +```cpp +TEST(...) { + NiceMock mock_registry; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com")) + .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page")); + + // Use mock_registry in code under test. + ... &mock_registry ... +} +``` + +The sole `EXPECT_CALL` here says that all calls to `GetDomainOwner()` must have +`"google.com"` as the argument. If `GetDomainOwner("yahoo.com")` is called, it +will be an unexpected call, and thus an error. *Having a nice mock doesn't +change the severity of an unexpected call.* + +So how do we tell gMock that `GetDomainOwner()` can be called with some other +arguments as well? The standard technique is to add a "catch all" `EXPECT_CALL`: + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner(_)) + .Times(AnyNumber()); // catches all other calls to this method. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com")) + .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page")); +``` + +Remember that `_` is the wildcard matcher that matches anything. With this, if +`GetDomainOwner("google.com")` is called, it will do what the second +`EXPECT_CALL` says; if it is called with a different argument, it will do what +the first `EXPECT_CALL` says. + +Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer +`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one. + +For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read +["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy). + +### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations} + +If your test doesn't care about the parameters (it only cares about the number +or order of calls), you can often simply omit the parameter list: + +```cpp + // Expect foo.Bar( ... ) twice with any arguments. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar).Times(2); + + // Delegate to the given method whenever the factory is invoked. + ON_CALL(foo_factory, MakeFoo) + .WillByDefault(&BuildFooForTest); +``` + +This functionality is only available when a method is not overloaded; to prevent +unexpected behavior it is a compilation error to try to set an expectation on a +method where the specific overload is ambiguous. You can work around this by +supplying a [simpler mock interface](#SimplerInterfaces) than the mocked class +provides. + +This pattern is also useful when the arguments are interesting, but match logic +is substantially complex. You can leave the argument list unspecified and use +SaveArg actions to [save the values for later verification](#SaveArgVerify). If +you do that, you can easily differentiate calling the method the wrong number of +times from calling it with the wrong arguments. + +### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls} + +Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined later takes precedence when gMock +tries to match a function call with an expectation, by default calls don't have +to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` statements are written. For example, if +the arguments match the matchers in the second `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in +the first and third, then the second expectation will be used. + +If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the expectations, put +the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you define a variable of type +`InSequence`: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::InSequence; + + { + InSequence s; + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); + EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_)) + .Times(2); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6)); + } +``` + +In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two calls to +`bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are in turn followed by +a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred out-of-order, gMock will report an +error. + +### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder} + +Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can lead to +brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring before both `B` and +`C`, but aren't interested in the relative order of `B` and `C`. In this case, +the test should reflect our real intent, instead of being overly constraining. + +gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the +calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the +[`After` clause](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL.After) of `EXPECT_CALL`. + +Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the `InSequence` +class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less flexible than `After()`, but +more convenient when you have long chains of sequential calls, as it doesn't +require you to come up with different names for the expectations in the chains. +Here's how it works: + +If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an edge from +node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get a DAG. We use the +term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this DAG. Now, if we decompose the +DAG into sequences, we just need to know which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()` +belongs to in order to be able to reconstruct the original DAG. + +So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two things: +first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each `EXPECT_CALL()` say +which `Sequence` objects it is part of. + +Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For +example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::Sequence; +... + Sequence s1, s2; + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, A()) + .InSequence(s1, s2); + EXPECT_CALL(bar, B()) + .InSequence(s1); + EXPECT_CALL(bar, C()) + .InSequence(s2); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, D()) + .InSequence(s2); +``` + +specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`): + +```text + +---> B + | + A ---| + | + +---> C ---> D +``` + +This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before D. There's +no restriction about the order other than these. + +### Controlling When an Expectation Retires + +When a mock method is called, gMock only considers expectations that are still +active. An expectation is active when created, and becomes inactive (aka +*retires*) when a call that has to occur later has occurred. For example, in + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Sequence; +... + Sequence s1, s2; + + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #1 + .Times(AnyNumber()) + .InSequence(s1, s2); + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty.")) // #2 + .InSequence(s1); + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found.")) // #3 + .InSequence(s2); +``` + +as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning `"File too +large."` is logged after this, it will be an error. + +Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For +example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")); // #2 +``` + +says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File too +large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will match again +and result in an upper-bound-violated error. + +If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it +becomes saturated: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #2 + .RetiresOnSaturation(); +``` + +Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the message +`"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second will match #1 - +there will be no error. + +## Using Actions + +### Returning References from Mock Methods + +If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()` +instead of `Return()` to return a result: + +```cpp +using ::testing::ReturnRef; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override)); +}; +... + MockFoo foo; + Bar bar; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) + .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar)); +... +``` + +### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods + +The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is created, and +always returns the same value whenever it's executed. Sometimes you may want to +instead return the *live* value of `x` (i.e. its value at the time when the +action is *executed*.). Use either `ReturnRef()` or `ReturnPointee()` for this +purpose. + +If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using +`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References from Mock +Methods"). However, gMock doesn't let you use `ReturnRef()` in a mock function +whose return type is not a reference, as doing that usually indicates a user +error. So, what shall you do? + +Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`: + +```cpp +using testing::Return; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override)); +}; +... + int x = 0; + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x))); // Wrong! + x = 42; + EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); +``` + +Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error: + +```text +Value of: foo.GetValue() + Actual: 0 +Expected: 42 +``` + +The reason is that `Return(*value*)` converts `value` to the actual return type +of the mock function at the time when the action is *created*, not when it is +*executed*. (This behavior was chosen for the action to be safe when `value` is +a proxy object that references some temporary objects.) As a result, +`std::ref(x)` is converted to an `int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when +the expectation is set, and `Return(std::ref(x))` will always return 0. + +`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It +returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*: + +```cpp +using testing::ReturnPointee; +... + int x = 0; + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) + .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x)); // Note the & here. + x = 42; + EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); // This will succeed now. +``` + +### Combining Actions + +Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's fine. `DoAll()` +allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only the return value of the +last action in the sequence will be used. + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::DoAll; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override)); +}; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1, + action_2, + ... + action_n)); +``` + +### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify} + +If you want to verify that a method is called with a particular argument but the +match criteria is complex, it can be difficult to distinguish between +cardinality failures (calling the method the wrong number of times) and argument +match failures. Similarly, if you are matching multiple parameters, it may not +be easy to distinguishing which argument failed to match. For example: + +```cpp + // Not ideal: this could fail because of a problem with arg1 or arg2, or maybe + // just the method wasn't called. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues(_, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7), EqualsProto( ... ))); +``` + +You can instead save the arguments and test them individually: + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues) + .WillOnce(DoAll(SaveArg<1>(&actual_array), SaveArg<2>(&actual_proto))); + ... run the test + EXPECT_THAT(actual_array, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7)); + EXPECT_THAT(actual_proto, EqualsProto( ... )); +``` + +### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects} + +Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but via side +effects. For example, it may change some global state or modify an output +argument. To mock side effects, in general you can define your own action by +implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`. + +If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in +`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::SetArgPointee; + +class MockMutator : public Mutator { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override)); + ... +} +... + MockMutator mutator; + EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _)) + .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5)); +``` + +In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the +`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based). + +`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the value you pass to +it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and alive. The implication +however is that the value must have a copy constructor and assignment operator. + +If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain +`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the +`Return()` statement last: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Return; +using ::testing::SetArgPointee; + +class MockMutator : public Mutator { + public: + ... + MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override)); +} +... + MockMutator mutator; + EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_)) + .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), + Return(true))); +``` + +Note, however, that if you use the `ReturnOKWith()` method, it will override the +values provided by `SetArgPointee()` in the response parameters of your function +call. + +If the output argument is an array, use the `SetArrayArgument(first, last)` +action instead. It copies the elements in source range `[first, last)` to the +array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NotNull; +using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; + +class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override)); + ... +} +... + MockArrayMutator mutator; + int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; + EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5)) + .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5)); +``` + +This also works when the argument is an output iterator: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; + +class MockRolodex : public Rolodex { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator>), + (override)); + ... +} +... + MockRolodex rolodex; + vector names; + names.push_back("George"); + names.push_back("John"); + names.push_back("Thomas"); + EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_)) + .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end())); +``` + +### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State + +If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use +`::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the +call: + +```cpp +using ::testing::InSequence; +using ::testing::Return; + +... + { + InSequence seq; + EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(true)); + EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush()); + EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(false)); + } + my_mock.FlushIfDirty(); +``` + +This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called +and return `false` afterwards. + +If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable +and make a mock method get its return value from that variable: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::SaveArg; +using ::testing::Return; + +ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; } +... + int previous_value = 0; + EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue) + .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value)); + EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue) + .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value)); + my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue(); +``` + +Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last +`UpdateValue()` call. + +### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue} + +If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by default it +will return 0 when invoked. Also, in C++ 11 and above, a mock method whose +return type has a default constructor will return a default-constructed value by +default. You only need to specify an action if this default value doesn't work +for you. + +Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want to specify +a default value for types gMock doesn't know about. You can do this using the +`::testing::DefaultValue` class template: + +```cpp +using ::testing::DefaultValue; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override)); +}; + + +... + Bar default_bar; + // Sets the default return value for type Bar. + DefaultValue::Set(default_bar); + + MockFoo foo; + + // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default + // return value works for us. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar()); + + foo.CalculateBar(); // This should return default_bar. + + // Unsets the default return value. + DefaultValue::Clear(); +``` + +Please note that changing the default value for a type can make your tests hard +to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example, +you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the +code that uses your mock. + +### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method + +You've learned how to change the default value of a given type. However, this +may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you have two mock methods with the +same return type and you want them to have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()` +macro allows you to customize your mock's behavior at the method level: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::AnyNumber; +using ::testing::Gt; +using ::testing::Return; +... + ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) + .WillByDefault(Return(-1)); + ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0)) + .WillByDefault(Return(0)); + ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0))) + .WillByDefault(Return(1)); + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) + .Times(AnyNumber()); + + foo.Sign(5); // This should return 1. + foo.Sign(-9); // This should return -1. + foo.Sign(0); // This should return 0. +``` + +As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` statements, +the newer ones in the order take precedence over the older ones. In other words, +the **last** one that matches the function arguments will be used. This matching +order allows you to set up the common behavior in a mock object's constructor or +the test fixture's set-up phase and specialize the mock's behavior later. + +Note that both `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` have the same "later statements take +precedence" rule, but they don't interact. That is, `EXPECT_CALL`s have their +own precedence order distinct from the `ON_CALL` precedence order. + +### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions} + +If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable +(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action. + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override)); +}; + +int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } +int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; } + +class Helper { + public: + bool ComplexJob(int x); +}; + +... + MockFoo foo; + Helper helper; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _)) + .WillOnce(&CalculateSum) + .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1))); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob)) + .WillOnce([] { return true; }) + .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; }); + + foo.Sum(5, 6); // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6). + foo.Sum(2, 3); // Invokes Sum3(1, 2, 3). + foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10). + foo.ComplexJob(-1); // Invokes the inline lambda. +``` + +The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible* +with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments (if +it takes any) can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the +former, and the former's return type can be implicitly converted to that of the +latter. So, you can invoke something whose type is *not* exactly the same as the +mock function, as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh? + +Note that: + +* The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the + action itself is destructed. +* If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need + to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g. + + ```cpp + using ::testing::Invoke; + ... + ResultCallback* is_ok = ...; + ... Invoke(is_ok) ...; // This works. + + BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure; + ... Invoke(implicit_cast(done)) ...; // The cast is necessary. + ``` + +### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions + +The function or functor you call using `Invoke()` must have the same number of +arguments as the mock function you use it for. Sometimes you may have a function +that takes more arguments, and you are willing to pass in the extra arguments +yourself to fill the gap. You can do this in gMock using callbacks with +pre-bound arguments. Here's an example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Invoke; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override)); +}; + +char SignOfSum(int x, int y) { + const int sum = x + y; + return (sum > 0) ? '+' : (sum < 0) ? '-' : '0'; +} + +TEST_F(FooTest, Test) { + MockFoo foo; + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(2)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(SignOfSum, 5))); + EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(2)); // Invokes SignOfSum(5, 2). +} +``` + +### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments + +`Invoke()` passes the mock function's arguments to the function, etc being +invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work with. If +the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can +simply ignore them. + +Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without +the arguments of the mock function. She could do that using a wrapper function +that throws away the arguments before invoking an underlining nullary function. +Needless to say, this can be tedious and obscures the intent of the test. + +There are two solutions to this problem. First, you can pass any callable of +zero args as an action. Alternatively, use `InvokeWithoutArgs()`, which is like +`Invoke()` except that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the +callee. Here's an example of each: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override)); +}; + +bool Job1() { ... } +bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... } + +... + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) + .WillOnce([] { Job1(); }); + .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a'))); + + foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1(). + foo.ComplexJob(20); // Invokes Job2(5, 'a'). +``` + +Note that: + +* The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the + action itself is destructed. +* If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need + to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g. + + ```cpp + using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; + ... + ResultCallback* is_ok = ...; + ... InvokeWithoutArgs(is_ok) ...; // This works. + + BlockingClosure* done = ...; + ... InvokeWithoutArgs(implicit_cast(done)) ...; + // The cast is necessary. + ``` + +### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function + +Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other +words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g. + +```cpp +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1* callback)), + (override)); +}; +``` + +and you may want to invoke this callable argument: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) + .WillOnce(...); + // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the + // second argument DoThis() receives. +``` + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: The section below is legacy documentation from before C++ had lambdas: + +Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no lambda +(yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you really? + +Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem: + +```cpp +InvokeArgument(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m) +``` + +will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, with +`arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is a function +pointer, a functor, or a callback. gMock handles them all. + +With that, you could write: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::InvokeArgument; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) + .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5)); + // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the + // second argument DoThis() receives. +``` + +What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it +inside `std::ref()`: + +```cpp + ... + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, + ((ResultCallback2* callback)), + (override)); + ... + using ::testing::_; + using ::testing::InvokeArgument; + ... + MockFoo foo; + Helper helper; + ... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, std::ref(helper))); + // std::ref(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of + // it, will be passed to the callback. +``` + +What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the +argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the +argument, and pass a *reference to the copy*, instead of a reference to the +original value, to the callable. This is especially handy when the argument is a +temporary value: + +```cpp + ... + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)), + (override)); + ... + using ::testing::_; + using ::testing::InvokeArgument; + ... + MockFoo foo; + ... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_)) + .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi"))); + // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer + // DoThat() receives. Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are + // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes. Yet + // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values + // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action. +``` + +### Ignoring an Action's Result + +Sometimes you have an action that returns *something*, but you need an action +that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock function that returns +`void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in `DoAll()` and it's not the last in the +list). `IgnoreResult()` lets you do that. For example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::DoAll; +using ::testing::IgnoreResult; +using ::testing::Return; + +int Process(const MyData& data); +string DoSomething(); + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override)); +}; + + ... + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_)) + // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process)); + // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs + // to return void. + .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process)); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz()) + .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething), + // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns. + Return(true))); +``` + +Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns +`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors. + +### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs} + +Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and you have a +custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is called. Trouble is, the +custom action only wants three arguments: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; +... + MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, + (bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, + (const map>), double& weight, double min_weight, + double max_wight)); +... +bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) { + return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0; +} +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo) + .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Uh, won't compile. :-( +``` + +To please the compiler God, you need to define an "adaptor" that has the same +signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the right arguments: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; +... +bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, + const map, double>& weight, + double min_weight, double max_wight) { + return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y); +} +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo) + .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Now it works. +``` + +But isn't this awkward? + +gMock provides a generic *action adaptor*, so you can spend your time minding +more important business than writing your own adaptors. Here's the syntax: + +```cpp +WithArgs(action) +``` + +creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at the given +indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs it. Using `WithArgs`, our +original example can be written as: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; +using ::testing::WithArgs; +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo) + .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1))); // No need to define your own adaptor. +``` + +For better readability, gMock also gives you: + +* `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and +* `WithArg(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes + *one* argument. + +As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for +`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`. + +Here are more tips: + +* The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be + `Invoke()` -- it can be anything. +* You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g. + `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`. +* You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`. +* The types of the selected arguments do *not* have to match the signature of + the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly + converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example, + if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes + a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work. + +### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions + +The [selecting-an-action's-arguments](#SelectingArgs) recipe showed us one way +to make a mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit +together. The downside is that wrapping the action in `WithArgs<...>()` can get +tedious for people writing the tests. + +If you are defining a function (or method, functor, lambda, callback) to be used +with `Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an +alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as `Unused`. +This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in case the types of +the uninteresting arguments change. It could also increase the chance the action +function can be reused. For example, given + +```cpp + public: + MOCK_METHOD(double, Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y), + (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(double, Bar, (int index, double x, double y), (override)); +``` + +instead of + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; + +double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) { + return sqrt(x*x + y*y); +} +double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) { + return sqrt(x*x + y*y); +} +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); +``` + +you could write + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; +using ::testing::Unused; + +double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) { + return sqrt(x*x + y*y); +} +... + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); +``` + +### Sharing Actions + +Just like matchers, a gMock action object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted +implementation object. Therefore copying actions is also allowed and very +efficient. When the last action that references the implementation object dies, +the implementation object will be deleted. + +If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, you may +not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action doesn't have an +internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing no matter how many times +it has been called), you can assign it to an action variable and use that +variable repeatedly. For example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Action; +using ::testing::DoAll; +using ::testing::Return; +using ::testing::SetArgPointee; +... + Action set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), + Return(true)); + ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ... +``` + +However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you share the +action object. Suppose you have an action factory `IncrementCounter(init)` which +creates an action that increments and returns a counter whose initial value is +`init`, using two actions created from the same expression and using a shared +action will exhibit different behaviors. Example: + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) + .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) + .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); + foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. + foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. + foo.DoThat(); // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different + // counter than Bar()'s. +``` + +versus + +```cpp +using ::testing::Action; +... + Action increment = IncrementCounter(0); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) + .WillRepeatedly(increment); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) + .WillRepeatedly(increment); + foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. + foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. + foo.DoThat(); // Returns 3 - the counter is shared. +``` + +### Testing Asynchronous Behavior + +One oft-encountered problem with gMock is that it can be hard to test +asynchronous behavior. Suppose you had a `EventQueue` class that you wanted to +test, and you created a separate `EventDispatcher` interface so that you could +easily mock it out. However, the implementation of the class fired all the +events on a background thread, which made test timings difficult. You could just +insert `sleep()` statements and hope for the best, but that makes your test +behavior nondeterministic. A better way is to use gMock actions and +`Notification` objects to force your asynchronous test to behave synchronously. + +```cpp +class MockEventDispatcher : public EventDispatcher { + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DispatchEvent, (int32), (override)); +}; + +TEST(EventQueueTest, EnqueueEventTest) { + MockEventDispatcher mock_event_dispatcher; + EventQueue event_queue(&mock_event_dispatcher); + + const int32 kEventId = 321; + absl::Notification done; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId)) + .WillOnce([&done] { done.Notify(); }); + + event_queue.EnqueueEvent(kEventId); + done.WaitForNotification(); +} +``` + +In the example above, we set our normal gMock expectations, but then add an +additional action to notify the `Notification` object. Now we can just call +`Notification::WaitForNotification()` in the main thread to wait for the +asynchronous call to finish. After that, our test suite is complete and we can +safely exit. + +{: .callout .note} +Note: this example has a downside: namely, if the expectation is not satisfied, +our test will run forever. It will eventually time-out and fail, but it will +take longer and be slightly harder to debug. To alleviate this problem, you can +use `WaitForNotificationWithTimeout(ms)` instead of `WaitForNotification()`. + +## Misc Recipes on Using gMock + +### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types + +C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from +one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr` is probably +the most commonly used move-only type. + +Mocking a method that takes and/or returns move-only types presents some +challenges, but nothing insurmountable. This recipe shows you how you can do it. +Note that the support for move-only method arguments was only introduced to +gMock in April 2017; in older code, you may find more complex +[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature. + +Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share +snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types: + +```cpp +enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic }; + +class Buzz { + public: + explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... } + ... +}; + +class Buzzer { + public: + virtual ~Buzzer() {} + virtual std::unique_ptr MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0; + virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0; + ... +}; +``` + +A `Buzz` object represents a snippet being posted. A class that implements the +`Buzzer` interface is capable of creating and sharing `Buzz`es. Methods in +`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr` or take a `unique_ptr`. Now we +need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests. + +To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the +familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual: + +```cpp +class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr buzz, int64_t timestamp), + (override)); +}; +``` + +Now that we have the mock class defined, we can use it in tests. In the +following code examples, we assume that we have defined a `MockBuzzer` object +named `mock_buzzer_`: + +```cpp + MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_; +``` + +First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which +returns a `unique_ptr`. + +As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or +`.WillRepeatedly()` clause), when that expectation fires, the default action for +that method will be taken. Since `unique_ptr<>` has a default constructor that +returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify an +action: + +```cpp + // Use the default action. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello")); + + // Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL. + EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello")); +``` + +If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see +[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall). + +If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the +`Return(ByMove(...))` action: + +```cpp + // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will + // be returned. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world")) + .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal)))); + + EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("world")); +``` + +Note that `ByMove()` is essential here - if you drop it, the code won’t compile. + +Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is +performed more than once (e.g. you write `... +.WillRepeatedly(Return(ByMove(...)));`)? Come think of it, after the first time +the action runs, the source value will be consumed (since it’s a move-only +value), so the next time around, there’s no value to move from -- you’ll get a +run-time error that `Return(ByMove(...))` can only be run once. + +If you need your mock method to do more than just moving a pre-defined value, +remember that you can always use a lambda or a callable object, which can do +pretty much anything you want: + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x")) + .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) { + return MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal); + }); + + EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x")); + EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x")); +``` + +Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr` will be created +and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`. + +That covers returning move-only values; but how do we work with methods +accepting move-only arguments? The answer is that they work normally, although +some actions will not compile when any of method's arguments are move-only. You +can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions): + +```cpp + using ::testing::Unused; + + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true)); + EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal)), + 0); + + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce( + [](std::unique_ptr buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; }); + EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0)); +``` + +Many built-in actions (`WithArgs`, `WithoutArgs`,`DeleteArg`, `SaveArg`, ...) +could in principle support move-only arguments, but the support for this is not +implemented yet. If this is blocking you, please file a bug. + +A few actions (e.g. `DoAll`) copy their arguments internally, so they can never +work with non-copyable objects; you'll have to use functors instead. + +#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly} + +Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April +of 2017. In older code, you may encounter the following workaround for the lack +of this feature (it is no longer necessary - we're including it just for +reference): + +```cpp +class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp)); + bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr buzz, Time timestamp) override { + return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp); + } +}; +``` + +The trick is to delegate the `ShareBuzz()` method to a mock method (let’s call +it `DoShareBuzz()`) that does not take move-only parameters. Then, instead of +setting expectations on `ShareBuzz()`, you set them on the `DoShareBuzz()` mock +method: + +```cpp + MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_; + EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)); + + // When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is + // forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked. Therefore this statement + // will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL. + mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal), 0); +``` + +### Making the Compilation Faster + +Believe it or not, the *vast majority* of the time spent on compiling a mock +class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they perform +non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the expectations). What's more, mock +methods with different signatures have different types and thus their +constructors/destructors need to be generated by the compiler separately. As a +result, if you mock many different types of methods, compiling your mock class +can get really slow. + +If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition of your +mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body and into a `.cc` +file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock class in N files, the compiler +only needs to generate its constructor and destructor once, resulting in a much +faster compilation. + +Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock +class before applying this recipe: + +```cpp +// File mock_foo.h. +... +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor, + // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit + // where this mock class is used. + + MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override)); + ... more mock methods ... +}; +``` + +After the change, it would look like: + +```cpp +// File mock_foo.h. +... +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here. + MockFoo(); + virtual ~MockFoo(); + + MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override)); + ... more mock methods ... +}; +``` + +and + +```cpp +// File mock_foo.cc. +#include "path/to/mock_foo.h" + +// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a +// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member +// variables used to implement the mock methods. +MockFoo::MockFoo() {} +MockFoo::~MockFoo() {} +``` + +### Forcing a Verification + +When it's being destroyed, your friendly mock object will automatically verify +that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will generate googletest +failures if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to +worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will be +destroyed. + +How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? Well, it +might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are testing. Suppose +there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the mock object properly - you +could end up with a passing test when there's actually a bug. + +Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but its +implementation is not 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want to *force* gMock +to verify a mock object before it is (hopefully) destructed. You can do this +with `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`: + +```cpp +TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) { + using ::testing::Mock; + + MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo; + EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...; + // ... other expectations ... + + // server now owns foo. + MyServer server(foo); + server.ProcessRequest(...); + + // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo, + // this will verify the expectations anyway. + Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo); +} // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here. +``` + +{: .callout .tip} +**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a `bool` to +indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for yes), so you can +wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if there is no point going +further when the verification has failed. + +Do not set new expectations after verifying and clearing a mock after its use. +Setting expectations after code that exercises the mock has undefined behavior. +See [Using Mocks in Tests](gmock_for_dummies.md#using-mocks-in-tests) for more +information. + +### Using Checkpoints {#UsingCheckPoints} + +Sometimes you might want to test a mock object's behavior in phases whose sizes +are each manageable, or you might want to set more detailed expectations about +which API calls invoke which mock functions. + +A technique you can use is to put the expectations in a sequence and insert +calls to a dummy "checkpoint" function at specific places. Then you can verify +that the mock function calls do happen at the right time. For example, if you +are exercising the code: + +```cpp + Foo(1); + Foo(2); + Foo(3); +``` + +and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke `mock.Bar("a")`, but +`Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything, you can write: + +```cpp +using ::testing::MockFunction; + +TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { + MyMock mock; + // Class MockFunction has exactly one mock method. It is named + // Call() and has type F. + MockFunction check; + { + InSequence s; + + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); + EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); + EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); + } + Foo(1); + check.Call("1"); + Foo(2); + check.Call("2"); + Foo(3); +} +``` + +The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` call must happen before +checkpoint "1", the second `Bar("a")` call must happen after checkpoint "2", and +nothing should happen between the two checkpoints. The explicit checkpoints make +it clear which `Bar("a")` is called by which call to `Foo()`. + +### Mocking Destructors + +Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the right time, +e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is called. We already know +that you can specify constraints on the [order](#OrderedCalls) of mock function +calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor of the mock function. + +This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special function +with special syntax and special semantics, and the `MOCK_METHOD` macro doesn't +work for it: + +```cpp +MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ()); // Won't compile! +``` + +The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same effect. +First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call it in the +destructor, like this: + +```cpp +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + // Add the following two lines to the mock class. + MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ()); + ~MockFoo() override { Die(); } +}; +``` + +(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another name.) Now, +we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` object dies to +testing when its `Die()` method is called: + +```cpp + MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo; + MockBar* bar = new MockBar; + ... + { + InSequence s; + + // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B(). + EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A()); + EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die()); + EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B()); + } +``` + +And that's that. + +### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads} + +In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of code in a +single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and dead locks, and makes +debugging your test much easier. + +Yet most programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something we need to +pound on it from more than one thread. gMock works for this purpose too. + +Remember the steps for using a mock: + +1. Create a mock object `foo`. +2. Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and + `EXPECT_CALL()`. +3. The code under test calls methods of `foo`. +4. Optionally, verify and reset the mock. +5. Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The + destructor will automatically verify it. + +If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live +happily together: + +* Execute your *test code* (as opposed to the code being tested) in *one* + thread. This makes your test easy to follow. +* Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking. +* When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`. + Obvious too, huh? +* #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway + you want. gMock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - + unless required by your test logic. + +If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a mock while +another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined behavior. That's not +fun, so don't do it. + +gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread +that called the mock function. For example, in + +```cpp + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1)) + .WillOnce(action1); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2)) + .WillOnce(action2); +``` + +if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, gMock will +execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread 2. + +gMock does *not* impose a sequence on actions performed in different threads +(doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may need to cooperate). This means +that the execution of `action1` and `action2` in the above example *may* +interleave. If this is a problem, you should add proper synchronization logic to +`action1` and `action2` to make the test thread-safe. + +Also, remember that `DefaultValue` is a global resource that potentially +affects *all* living mock objects in your program. Naturally, you won't want to +mess with it from multiple threads or when there still are mocks in action. + +### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints + +When gMock sees something that has the potential of being an error (e.g. a mock +function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an uninteresting call, which is +allowed but perhaps you forgot to explicitly ban the call), it prints some +warning messages, including the arguments of the function, the return value, and +the stack trace. Hopefully this will remind you to take a look and see if there +is indeed a problem. + +Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not appreciate +such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging your tests or +learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, and wish you could +observe every mock call that happens (including argument values, the return +value, and the stack trace). Clearly, one size doesn't fit all. + +You can control how much gMock tells you using the `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` +command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string with three possible values: + +* `info`: gMock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors + (most verbose). At this setting, gMock will also log any calls to the + `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. It will include a stack trace in + "uninteresting call" warnings. +* `warning`: gMock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose); it will + omit the stack traces in "uninteresting call" warnings. This is the default. +* `error`: gMock will print errors only (least verbose). + +Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like +so: + +```cpp + ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error"; +``` + +If you find gMock printing too many stack frames with its informational or +warning messages, remember that you can control their amount with the +`--gtest_stack_trace_depth=max_depth` flag. + +Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable gMock serve you better! + +### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls + +You have a test using gMock. It fails: gMock tells you some expectations aren't +satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: Is there a typo somewhere in the +matchers? Did you mess up the order of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under +test doing something wrong? How can you find out the cause? + +Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the trace of all +`EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? For each call, would you +like to see its actual argument values and which `EXPECT_CALL` gMock thinks it +matches? If you still need some help to figure out who made these calls, how +about being able to see the complete stack trace at each mock call? + +You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info` +flag. For example, given the test program: + +```cpp +#include "gmock/gmock.h" + +using testing::_; +using testing::HasSubstr; +using testing::Return; + +class MockFoo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y)); +}; + +TEST(Foo, Bar) { + MockFoo mock; + EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)).WillRepeatedly(Return()); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")); + EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))); + + mock.F("a", "good"); + mock.F("a", "b"); +} +``` + +if you run it with `--gmock_verbose=info`, you will see this output: + +```shell +[ RUN ] Foo.Bar + +foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked +Stack trace: ... + +foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked +Stack trace: ... + +foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked +Stack trace: ... + +foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))... + Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good") +Stack trace: ... + +foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))... + Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b") +Stack trace: ... + +foo_test.cc:16: Failure +Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")))... + Expected: to be called once + Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active +[ FAILED ] Foo.Bar +``` + +Suppose the bug is that the `"c"` in the third `EXPECT_CALL` is a typo and +should actually be `"a"`. With the above message, you should see that the actual +`F("a", "good")` call is matched by the first `EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as +you thought. From that it should be obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is +written wrong. Case solved. + +If you are interested in the mock call trace but not the stack traces, you can +combine `--gmock_verbose=info` with `--gtest_stack_trace_depth=0` on the test +command line. + +### Running Tests in Emacs + +If you build and run your tests in Emacs using the `M-x google-compile` command +(as many googletest users do), the source file locations of gMock and googletest +errors will be highlighted. Just press `` on one of them and you'll be +taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x`` to jump to the next +error. + +To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your `~/.emacs` file: + +```text +(global-set-key "\M-m" 'google-compile) ; m is for make +(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error) +(global-set-key [M-up] '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1))) +``` + +Then you can type `M-m` to start a build (if you want to run the test as well, +just make sure `foo_test.run` or `runtests` is in the build command you supply +after typing `M-m`), or `M-up`/`M-down` to move back and forth between errors. + +## Extending gMock + +### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers} + +{: .callout .warning} +WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be +invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be functionally pure. See +[this section](#PureMatchers) for more details. + +The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily. +The syntax: + +```cpp +MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; } +``` + +will define a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, which +must return a `bool` to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside the statements, +you can refer to the value being matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by +`arg_type`. + +The *description string* is a `string`-typed expression that documents what the +matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message when the match fails. +It can (and should) reference the special `bool` variable `negation`, and should +evaluate to the description of the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that +of the matcher's negation when `negation` is `true`. + +For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), in which +case gMock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the +description. + +For example: + +```cpp +MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; } +``` + +allows you to write + +```cpp + // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())); +``` + +or, + +```cpp + using ::testing::Not; + ... + // Verifies that a value is divisible by 7 and the other is not. + EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7()); + EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7())); +``` + +If the above assertions fail, they will print something like: + +```shell + Value of: some_expression + Expected: is divisible by 7 + Actual: 27 + ... + Value of: some_other_expression + Expected: not (is divisible by 7) + Actual: 21 +``` + +where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible by 7)"` are +automatically calculated from the matcher name `IsDivisibleBy7`. + +As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially those for +the negation) may not be so great. You can always override them with a `string` +expression of your own: + +```cpp +MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, + absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) { + return (arg % 7) == 0; +} +``` + +Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument named +`result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a better definition +of `IsDivisibleBy7` is: + +```cpp +MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { + if ((arg % 7) == 0) + return true; + + *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7); + return false; +} +``` + +With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message: + +```shell + Value of: some_expression + Expected: is divisible by 7 + Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6) +``` + +You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print *any additional information* that can +help a user understand the match result. Note that it should explain why the +match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's obvious) - this is useful when +the matcher is used inside `Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value +itself, as gMock already prints it for you. + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the +context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so +you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the +matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match +any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a +`bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an +`int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will +be `unsigned long`; and so on. + +### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly + +Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can +use the macro: + +```cpp +MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } +``` + +where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that +references `negation` and `param_name`. + +For example: + +```cpp +MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } +``` + +will allow you to write: + +```cpp + EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); +``` + +which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10): + +```shell + Value of: Blah("a") + Expected: has absolute value 10 + Actual: -9 +``` + +Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the +message human-friendly. + +In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to reference the type +of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the body of +`MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write `value_type` to refer +to the type of `value`. + +gMock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to `MATCHER_P10` to +support multi-parameter matchers: + +```cpp +MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; } +``` + +Please note that the custom description string is for a particular *instance* of +the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to actual values. Therefore +usually you'll want the parameter values to be part of the description. gMock +lets you do that by referencing the matcher parameters in the description string +expression. + +For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::PrintToString; +MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, + absl::StrFormat("%s in range [%s, %s]", negation ? "isn't" : "is", + PrintToString(low), PrintToString(hi))) { + return low <= arg && arg <= hi; +} +... +EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); +``` + +would generate a failure that contains the message: + +```shell + Expected: is in range [4, 6] +``` + +If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will contain the +sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the parameter values printed +as a tuple. For example, + +```cpp + MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } + ... + EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); +``` + +would generate a failure that contains the text: + +```shell + Expected: in closed range (4, 6) +``` + +For the purpose of typing, you can view + +```cpp +MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } +``` + +as shorthand for + +```cpp +template +FooMatcherPk +Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } +``` + +When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of the +parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with the result of +the type inference, you can specify the types by explicitly instantiating the +template, as in `Foo(5, false)`. As said earlier, you don't get to +(or need to) specify `arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the +matcher is used. + +You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a variable of type +`FooMatcherPk`. This can be useful when composing +matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter or have only one parameter have +special types: you can assign `Foo()` to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and +assign `Foo(p)` to a `FooMatcherP`-typed variable. + +While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, passing the +parameters by pointer usually makes your code more readable. If, however, you +still want to pass a parameter by reference, be aware that in the failure +message generated by the matcher you will see the value of the referenced object +but not its address. + +You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: + +```cpp +MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... } +MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... } +``` + +While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new +matcher, you should also consider implementing the matcher interface directly +instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher +a lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more control on +the types of the value being matched and the matcher parameters, which in +general leads to better compiler error messages that pay off in the long run. +They also allow overloading matchers based on parameter types (as opposed to +just based on the number of parameters). + +### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers + +A matcher of argument type `T` implements the matcher interface for `T` and does +two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can +describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for +generating readable error messages when expectations are violated. + +A matcher of `T` must declare a typedef like: + +```cpp +using is_gtest_matcher = void; +``` + +and supports the following operations: + +```cpp +// Match a value and optionally explain into an ostream. +bool matched = matcher.MatchAndExplain(value, maybe_os); +// where `value` is of type `T` and +// `maybe_os` is of type `std::ostream*`, where it can be null if the caller +// is not interested in there textual explanation. + +matcher.DescribeTo(os); +matcher.DescribeNegationTo(os); +// where `os` is of type `std::ostream*`. +``` + +If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for example, +you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` describes itself, or you +may want your matcher to be polymorphic as `Eq(value)` is), you can define a +matcher to do whatever you want in two steps: first implement the matcher +interface, and then define a factory function to create a matcher instance. The +second step is not strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher +nicer. + +For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is divisible by 7 +and then use it like this: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Matcher; + +class DivisibleBy7Matcher { + public: + using is_gtest_matcher = void; + + bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream*) const { + return (n % 7) == 0; + } + + void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { + *os << "is divisible by 7"; + } + + void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { + *os << "is not divisible by 7"; + } +}; + +Matcher DivisibleBy7() { + return DivisibleBy7Matcher(); +} + +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7())); +``` + +You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the +`os` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`: + +```cpp +class DivisibleBy7Matcher { + public: + bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream* os) const { + const int remainder = n % 7; + if (remainder != 0 && os != nullptr) { + *os << "the remainder is " << remainder; + } + return remainder == 0; + } + ... +}; +``` + +Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this: + +```shell +Value of: x +Expected: is divisible by 7 + Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2) +``` + +{: .callout .tip} +Tip: for convenience, `MatchAndExplain()` can take a `MatchResultListener*` +instead of `std::ostream*`. + +### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers + +Expanding what we learned above to *polymorphic* matchers is now just as simple +as adding templates in the right place. + +```cpp + +class NotNullMatcher { + public: + using is_gtest_matcher = void; + + // To implement a polymorphic matcher, we just need to make MatchAndExplain a + // template on its first argument. + + // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so + // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. + // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or + // a method template, or even overload it. + template + bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, std::ostream*) const { + return p != nullptr; + } + + // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. + void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } + + // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. + void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } +}; + +NotNullMatcher NotNull() { + return NotNullMatcher(); +} + +... + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. +``` + +### Legacy Matcher Implementation + +Defining matchers used to be somewhat more complicated, in which it required +several supporting classes and virtual functions. To implement a matcher for +type `T` using the legacy API you have to derive from `MatcherInterface` and +call `MakeMatcher` to construct the object. + +The interface looks like this: + +```cpp +class MatchResultListener { + public: + ... + // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream + // is NULL. + template + MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x); + + // Returns the underlying ostream. + std::ostream* stream(); +}; + +template +class MatcherInterface { + public: + virtual ~MatcherInterface(); + + // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match + // result to 'listener'. + virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; + + // Describes this matcher to an ostream. + virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0; + + // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. + virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const; +}; +``` + +Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher easily with +the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can define `NotNull()` as +an example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; +using ::testing::MatchResultListener; +using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher; + +class NotNullMatcher { + public: + // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class + // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and + // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following. + + // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so + // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. + // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or + // a method template, or even overload it. + template + bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, + MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const { + return p != NULL; + } + + // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. + void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } + + // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. + void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } +}; + +// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class +// to MakePolymorphicMatcher(). Note the return type. +PolymorphicMatcher NotNull() { + return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher()); +} + +... + + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. +``` + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from +`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be +virtual. + +Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming +additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`. + +### Writing New Cardinalities + +A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell gMock how many times you expect a +call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, you can say +`AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`. + +If the [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities +doesn't suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following +interface (in namespace `testing`): + +```cpp +class CardinalityInterface { + public: + virtual ~CardinalityInterface(); + + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. + virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; + + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this + // cardinality. + virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; + + // Describes self to an ostream. + virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0; +}; +``` + +For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can +write + +```cpp +using ::testing::Cardinality; +using ::testing::CardinalityInterface; +using ::testing::MakeCardinality; + +class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface { + public: + bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override { + return (call_count % 2) == 0; + } + + bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override { + return false; + } + + void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { + *os << "called even number of times"; + } +}; + +Cardinality EvenNumber() { + return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality); +} + +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3)) + .Times(EvenNumber()); +``` + +### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions} + +If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one. +Just define a functor class with a (possibly templated) call operator, matching +the signature of your action. + +```cpp +struct Increment { + template + T operator()(T* arg) { + return ++(*arg); + } +} +``` + +The same approach works with stateful functors (or any callable, really): + +``` +struct MultiplyBy { + template + T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; } + + int multiplier; +} + +// Then use: +// EXPECT_CALL(...).WillOnce(MultiplyBy{7}); +``` + +#### Legacy macro-based Actions + +Before C++11, the functor-based actions were not supported; the old way of +writing actions was through a set of `ACTION*` macros. We suggest to avoid them +in new code; they hide a lot of logic behind the macro, potentially leading to +harder-to-understand compiler errors. Nevertheless, we cover them here for +completeness. + +By writing + +```cpp +ACTION(name) { statements; } +``` + +in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will define an +action with the given name that executes the statements. The value returned by +`statements` will be used as the return value of the action. Inside the +statements, you can refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function as +`argK`. For example: + +```cpp +ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } +``` + +allows you to write + +```cpp +... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); +``` + +Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function arguments. +Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: you'll get a compiler error if +`*arg1` doesn't support the `++` operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't +compatible with the mock function's return type. + +Another example: + +```cpp +ACTION(Foo) { + (*arg2)(5); + Blah(); + *arg1 = 0; + return arg0; +} +``` + +defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) with 5, +calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument #1 to 0, and +returns argument #0. + +For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following pre-defined +symbols in the body of `ACTION`: + +`argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function +:-------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------- +`args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple +`args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple +`return_type` | The return type of the mock function +`function_type` | The type of the mock function + +For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: + +```cpp +int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); +``` + +we have: + +Pre-defined Symbol | Is Bound To +------------------ | --------------------------------- +`arg0` | the value of `flag` +`arg0_type` | the type `bool` +`arg1` | the value of `ptr` +`arg1_type` | the type `int*` +`args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` +`args_type` | the type `std::tuple` +`return_type` | the type `int` +`function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` + +#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions + +Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have +another macro + +```cpp +ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } +``` + +For example, + +```cpp +ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } +``` + +will allow you to write + +```cpp +// Returns argument #0 + 5. +... WillOnce(Add(5)); +``` + +For convenience, we use the term *arguments* for the values used to invoke the +mock function, and the term *parameters* for the values used to instantiate an +action. + +Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. Suppose +the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the gMock-defined symbol +`param_type` to refer to the type of the parameter as inferred by the compiler. +For example, in the body of `ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for +the type of `n`. + +gMock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support multi-parameter +actions. For example, + +```cpp +ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { + double dx = arg0 - x; + double dy = arg1 - y; + return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); +} +``` + +lets you write + +```cpp +... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); +``` + +You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of +parameters is 0. + +You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: + +```cpp +ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } +ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } +``` + +### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION + +For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask you to +provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action parameters. +Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. + +Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are +several tricks to do that. For example: + +```cpp +ACTION(Foo) { + // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. + int n = arg0; + ... use n instead of arg0 here ... +} + +ACTION_P(Bar, param) { + // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. + ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); + + // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. + bool flag = param; +} +``` + +where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that +verifies two types are the same. + +### Writing New Action Templates Quickly + +Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that cannot be +inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` supports that and can be +viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and `ACTION_P*()`. + +The syntax: + +```cpp +ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, + HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), + AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } +``` + +defines an action template that takes *m* explicit template parameters and *n* +value parameters, where *m* is in [1, 10] and *n* is in [0, 10]. `name_i` is the +name of the *i*-th template parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a +`typename`, an integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the *i*-th +value parameter. + +Example: + +```cpp +// DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock +// function to type T and copies it to *output. +ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, + // Note the comma between int and k: + HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), + AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { + *output = T(std::get(args)); +} +``` + +To create an instance of an action template, write: + +```cpp +ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) +``` + +where the `t`s are the template arguments and the `v`s are the value arguments. +The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. For example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + int n; + EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); +``` + +If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide +additional template arguments: + +```cpp +ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) +``` + +where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`. + +`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the number of +value parameters, but not on the number of template parameters. Without the +restriction, the meaning of the following is unclear: + +```cpp + OverloadedAction(x); +``` + +Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to the type +of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler is asked to infer +the type of `x`? + +### Using the ACTION Object's Type + +If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll need to +know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define the action and the +parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: + + +| Given Definition | Expression | Has Type | +| ----------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- | +| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | +| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | +| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | +| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | +| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | +| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | +| ... | ... | ... | + + +Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, `ActionP2`, +and etc) for actions with different numbers of value parameters, or the action +definitions cannot be overloaded on the number of them. + +### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions} + +While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are +inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous recipes, +they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock function arguments and +the action parameters, which in general leads to unoptimized compiler error +messages that can baffle unfamiliar users. They also don't allow overloading +actions based on parameter types without jumping through some hoops. + +An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement +`::testing::ActionInterface`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in +which the action will be used. For example: + +```cpp +template +class ActionInterface { + public: + virtual ~ActionInterface(); + + // Performs the action. Result is the return type of function type + // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F. + // + + // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would + // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple. + virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0; +}; +``` + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Action; +using ::testing::ActionInterface; +using ::testing::MakeAction; + +typedef int IncrementMethod(int*); + +class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface { + public: + int Perform(const std::tuple& args) override { + int* p = std::get<0>(args); // Grabs the first argument. + return *p++; + } +}; + +Action IncrementArgument() { + return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction); +} + +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_)) + .WillOnce(IncrementArgument()); + + int n = 5; + foo.Baz(&n); // Should return 5 and change n to 6. +``` + +### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions} + +The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is all good, +except that you need to know the type of the function in which the action will +be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For example, if you want to use the +action in functions with *different* types (e.g. like `Return()` and +`SetArgPointee()`). + +If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say it's +*polymorphic*. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template makes it easy to +define such an action: + +```cpp +namespace testing { +template +PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl); +} // namespace testing +``` + +As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument in the +mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an implementation +class: + +```cpp +class ReturnSecondArgumentAction { + public: + template + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { + // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args). + return std::get<1>(args); + } +}; +``` + +This implementation class does *not* need to inherit from any particular class. +What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` method template. This method +template takes the mock function's arguments as a tuple in a **single** +argument, and returns the result of the action. It can be either `const` or not, +but must be invokable with exactly one template argument, which is the result +type. In other words, you must be able to call `Perform(args)` where `R` is +the mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple. + +Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the implementation +class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be convenient to have a +wrapper for this: + +```cpp +using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction; +using ::testing::PolymorphicAction; + +PolymorphicAction ReturnSecondArgument() { + return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction()); +} +``` + +Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + public: + MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2), + (override)); +}; + + ... + MockFoo foo; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); + ... + foo.DoThis(true, 5); // Will return 5. + foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye"); // Will return "Hi". +``` + +### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values + +When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, gMock prints the argument +values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion macros like +`EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in question when the +assertion fails. gMock and googletest do this using googletest's user-extensible +value printer. + +This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL +containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it +prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out. +[The GoogleTest advanced guide](advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values) +explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your +particular type than to dump the bytes. + +## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock + + + + +### Mock std::function {#MockFunction} + +`std::function` is a general function type introduced in C++11. It is a +preferred way of passing callbacks to new interfaces. Functions are copiable, +and are not usually passed around by pointer, which makes them tricky to mock. +But fear not - `MockFunction` can help you with that. + +`MockFunction` has a mock method `Call()` with the signature: + +```cpp + R Call(T1, ..., Tn); +``` + +It also has a `AsStdFunction()` method, which creates a `std::function` proxy +forwarding to Call: + +```cpp + std::function AsStdFunction(); +``` + +To use `MockFunction`, first create `MockFunction` object and set up +expectations on its `Call` method. Then pass proxy obtained from +`AsStdFunction()` to the code you are testing. For example: + +```cpp +TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) { + // 1. Create a mock object. + MockFunction mock_function; + + // 2. Set expectations on Call() method. + EXPECT_CALL(mock_function, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1)); + + // 3. Exercise code that uses std::function. + Foo(mock_function.AsStdFunction()); + // Foo's signature can be either of: + // void Foo(const std::function& fun); + // void Foo(std::function fun); + + // 4. All expectations will be verified when mock_function + // goes out of scope and is destroyed. +} +``` + +Remember that function objects created with `AsStdFunction()` are just +forwarders. If you create multiple of them, they will share the same set of +expectations. + +Although `std::function` supports unlimited number of arguments, `MockFunction` +implementation is limited to ten. If you ever hit that limit... well, your +callback has bigger problems than being mockable. :-) diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_faq.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_faq.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2cd9b3f --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_faq.md @@ -0,0 +1,390 @@ +# Legacy gMock FAQ + +### When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? + +In order for a method to be mocked, it must be *virtual*, unless you use the +[high-perf dependency injection technique](gmock_cook_book.md#MockingNonVirtualMethods). + +### Can I mock a variadic function? + +You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis (`...`) +arguments) directly in gMock. + +The problem is that in general, there is *no way* for a mock object to know how +many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what the arguments' types +are. Only the *author of the base class* knows the protocol, and we cannot look +into his or her head. + +Therefore, to mock such a function, the *user* must teach the mock object how to +figure out the number of arguments and their types. One way to do it is to +provide overloaded versions of the function. + +Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. They are +unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have constructors or +destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in C++ as much as possible. + +### MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? + +If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1: + +```cpp +class Foo { + ... + virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0; +}; + +class MockFoo : public Foo { + ... + MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (const int i), (override)); +}; +``` + +You may get the following warning: + +```shell +warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier +``` + +This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc, for example. If you +use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning: + +```shell +warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers +``` + +In C++, if you *declare* a function with a `const` parameter, the `const` +modifier is ignored. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above is equivalent to: + +```cpp +class Foo { + ... + virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference. +}; +``` + +In fact, you can *declare* `Bar()` with an `int` parameter, and define it with a +`const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them up. + +Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method declaration, we +recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. That should workaround the +VC bug. + +Note that we are talking about the *top-level* `const` modifier here. If the +function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring the pointee or +referee as `const` is still meaningful. For example, the following two +declarations are *not* equivalent: + +```cpp +void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const. +void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is. +``` + +### I can't figure out why gMock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? + +You might want to run your test with `--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets +gMock print a trace of every mock function call it receives. By studying the +trace, you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met. + +If you see the message "The mock function has no default action set, and its +return type has no default value set.", then try +[adding a default action](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#OnCall). Due to a known issue, +unexpected calls on mocks without default actions don't print out a detailed +comparison between the actual arguments and the expected arguments. + +### My program crashed and `ScopedMockLog` spit out tons of messages. Is it a gMock bug? + +gMock and `ScopedMockLog` are likely doing the right thing here. + +When a test crashes, the failure signal handler will try to log a lot of +information (the stack trace, and the address map, for example). The messages +are compounded if you have many threads with depth stacks. When `ScopedMockLog` +intercepts these messages and finds that they don't match any expectations, it +prints an error for each of them. + +You can learn to ignore the errors, or you can rewrite your expectations to make +your test more robust, for example, by adding something like: + +```cpp +using ::testing::AnyNumber; +using ::testing::Not; +... + // Ignores any log not done by us. + EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(_, Not(EndsWith("/my_file.cc")), _)) + .Times(AnyNumber()); +``` + +### How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .Times(0); +``` + +### I have a failed test where gMock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? + +When gMock detects a failure, it prints relevant information (the mock function +arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and etc) to help the user debug. +If another failure is detected, gMock will do the same, including printing the +state of relevant expectations. + +Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, and you'll +see the same description of the state twice. They are however *not* redundant, +as they refer to *different points in time*. The fact they are the same *is* +interesting information. + +### I get a heapcheck failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? + +Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a virtual +destructor? + +Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is virtual. +Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following code: + +```cpp +class Base { + public: + // Not virtual, but should be. + ~Base() { ... } + ... +}; + +class Derived : public Base { + public: + ... + private: + std::string value_; +}; + +... + Base* p = new Derived; + ... + delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not + // - value_ is leaked. +``` + +By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly called when +`delete p` is executed, and the heap checker will be happy. + +### The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does gMock do that? + +When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... + // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return + // 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the + // reverse order. This sucks big time!!! + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) + .WillOnce(Return(2)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) + .WillOnce(Return(1)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); +``` + +The problem, is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's +intent. + +By default, expectations don't have to be matched in *any* particular order. If +you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be explicit. This is +gMock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's easy to accidentally +over-specify your tests, and we want to make it harder to do so. + +There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either put the +expectations in sequence: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... + // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return + // 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations + // in their natural order. + { + InSequence s; + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) + .WillOnce(Return(1)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) + .WillOnce(Return(2)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); + } +``` + +or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... + // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return + // 2 the second time. + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) + .WillOnce(Return(1)) + .WillOnce(Return(2)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); +``` + +Back to the original questions: why does gMock search the expectations (and +`ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this allows a user to set up a mock's +behavior for the common case early (e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test +fixture's set-up phase) and customize it with more specific rules later. If +gMock searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be possible. + +### gMock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? + +When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the latter. So +the answer is that we think it's better to show the warning. + +Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's constructor or `SetUp()`, as +the default behavior rarely changes from test to test. Then in the test body +they set the expectations, which are often different for each test. Having an +`ON_CALL` in the set-up part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. +If there's no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If +we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs may creep in +unnoticed. + +If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .WillRepeatedly(...); +``` + +instead of + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... + ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) + .WillByDefault(...); +``` + +This tells gMock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be printed. + +Also, you can control the verbosity by specifying `--gmock_verbose=error`. Other +values are `info` and `warning`. If you find the output too noisy when +debugging, just choose a less verbose level. + +### How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? + +If your mock function takes a pointer argument and you want to delete that +argument, you can use testing::DeleteArg() to delete the N'th (zero-indexed) +argument: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; + ... + MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (X* x, const Y& y)); + ... + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, Bar(_, _)) + .WillOnce(testing::DeleteArg<0>())); +``` + +### How can I perform an arbitrary action on a mock function's argument? + +If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not supported by +gMock directly, remember that you can define your own actions using +[`MakeAction()`](#NewMonoActions) or +[`MakePolymorphicAction()`](#NewPolyActions), or you can write a stub function +and invoke it using [`Invoke()`](#FunctionsAsActions). + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Invoke; + ... + MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (X* p)); + ... + EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, Bar(_)) + .WillOnce(Invoke(MyAction(...))); +``` + +### My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? + +You can, but you need to make some changes. + +In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, it's a sign +that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less flexible, less reusable, +less testable, etc). You are probably better off defining a small interface and +call the function through that interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's +a bit of work initially, but usually pays for itself quickly. + +This Google Testing Blog +[post](https://testing.googleblog.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) says it +excellently. Check it out. + +### My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. gMock sucks! + +I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-) + +With gMock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be tempted to +use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and sometimes you may find them, +well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in the latter case? + +When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and assert that +it returns the correct value or that the system is in an expected state. This is +sometimes called "state-based testing". + +Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: instead of +checking the system state at the very end, mock objects verify that they are +invoked the right way and report an error as soon as it arises, giving you a +handle on the precise context in which the error was triggered. This is often +more effective and economical to do than state-based testing. + +If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to simulate +the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. Using a mock in this +case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for mocks to perform complex +actions. If you experience this and think that mocks suck, you are just not +using the right tool for your problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the +wrong problem. :-) + +### I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? + +By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. :-) + +What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any expectations +on it (by gMock's rule this means that you are not interested in calls to this +function and therefore it can be called any number of times), and it is called. +That's OK - you didn't say it's not OK to call the function! + +What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but forgot to +write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While one can argue that it's the +user's fault, gMock tries to be nice and prints you a note. + +So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any +uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make your life +easier, gMock dumps the stack trace when an uninteresting call is encountered. +From that you can figure out which mock function it is, and how it is called. + +### I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the ActionInterface interface? + +Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient for your +circumstance. + +Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it using +`Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in functions of +different types (e.g. if you are defining `Return(*value*)`), +`MakePolymorphicAction()` is easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what +types of functions the action can be used in, and implementing `ActionInterface` +is the way to go here. See the implementation of `Return()` in +`testing/base/public/gmock-actions.h` for an example. + +### I use SetArgPointee() in WillOnce(), but gcc complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? + +You got this error as gMock has no idea what value it should return when the +mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the side effect is, but +doesn't say what the return value should be. You need `DoAll()` to chain a +`SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()` that provides a value appropriate to the API +being mocked. + +See this [recipe](gmock_cook_book.md#mocking-side-effects) for more details and +an example. + +### I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? + +We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ uses 5~6 +times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest to avoid `/clr` +when compiling native C++ mocks. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1f4cc24 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md @@ -0,0 +1,700 @@ +# gMock for Dummies + +## What Is gMock? + +When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on +real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real +object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will +be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how +many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc). + +It is easy to confuse the term *fake objects* with mock objects. Fakes and mocks +actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) +community: + +* **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some + shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them + not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of + a fake. +* **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with *expectations*, which form a + specification of the calls they are expected to receive. + +If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing +to remember is that a mock allows you to check the *interaction* between itself +and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks shall become much +clearer once you start to use mocks. + +**gMock** is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound +cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what +jMock/EasyMock does to Java (well, more or less). + +When using gMock, + +1. first, you use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to + mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class; +2. next, you create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior + using an intuitive syntax; +3. then you exercise code that uses the mock objects. gMock will catch any + violation to the expectations as soon as it arises. + +## Why gMock? + +While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make +them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is *hard*: + +* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and + error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. +* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You + may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were + hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. +* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next + one. + +In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks (jMock, +EasyMock, etc), which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a +proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. +Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. + +gMock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by jMock and EasyMock, +but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the +following problems is bothering you: + +* You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more + prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means + "rapid". +* Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive + resources (e.g. a database). +* Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the + network). +* You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum + error), but it's not easy to cause one. +* You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the + right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to + observing the side effects at the end of the action, but it's awkward at + best. +* You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock + implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those + hand-written mocks. + +We encourage you to use gMock as + +* a *design* tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early + and often. More iterations lead to better designs! +* a *testing* tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the + interaction between your module and its collaborators. + +## Getting Started + +gMock is bundled with googletest. + +## A Case for Mock Turtles + +Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that +relies on a [LOGO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_programming_language)-like +API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can +run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: +tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a +shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to +update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are +like this. Fortunately, you learned about +[Dependency Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection) and know the right thing +to do: instead of having your application talk to the system API directly, wrap +the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface: + +```cpp +class Turtle { + ... + virtual ~Turtle() {} + virtual void PenUp() = 0; + virtual void PenDown() = 0; + virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0; + virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0; + virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0; + virtual int GetX() const = 0; + virtual int GetY() const = 0; +}; +``` + +(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for +**all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the +derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base +pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.) + +You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` +and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and +`GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the +turtle. + +Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In +tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily +check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and +in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break +because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and +maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary +images), and run *much, much faster*. + +## Writing the Mock Class + +If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by +some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock +class, relax - gMock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.) + +### How to Define It + +Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to +follow: + +* Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`. +* Take a *virtual* function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to + [mock non-virtual methods using templates](gmock_cook_book.md#MockingNonVirtualMethods), + it's much more involved). +* In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHOD();` +* Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste it + into the macro, and add two commas - one between the return type and the + name, another between the name and the argument list. +* If you're mocking a const method, add a 4th parameter containing `(const)` + (the parentheses are required). +* Since you're overriding a virtual method, we suggest adding the `override` + keyword. For const methods the 4th parameter becomes `(const, override)`, + for non-const methods just `(override)`. This isn't mandatory. +* Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. (It goes + without saying that *all* pure virtual methods in your abstract class must + be either mocked or overridden.) + +After the process, you should have something like: + +```cpp +#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in gMock. + +class MockTurtle : public Turtle { + public: + ... + MOCK_METHOD(void, PenUp, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, PenDown, (), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Forward, (int distance), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, Turn, (int degrees), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(void, GoTo, (int x, int y), (override)); + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetX, (), (const, override)); + MOCK_METHOD(int, GetY, (), (const, override)); +}; +``` + +You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD` +macro will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! + +### Where to Put It + +When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. +Some people put it in a `_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked +(say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of +`Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s +maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?) + +So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, +define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package +such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), put +it in a `.h` and a `cc_library`. Then everyone can reference them from their +tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and +only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed. + +Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of +`Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb +changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully +choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more +readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your +specific domain much better than `Foo` does. + +## Using Mocks in Tests + +Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is: + +1. Import the gMock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use + them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file). Remember that + namespaces are a good idea. +2. Create some mock objects. +3. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? + With what arguments? What should it do? etc.). +4. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using + googletest assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with + wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately. +5. When a mock is destructed, gMock will automatically check whether all + expectations on it have been satisfied. + +Here's an example: + +```cpp +#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h" +#include "gmock/gmock.h" +#include "gtest/gtest.h" + +using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1 + +TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) { + MockTurtle turtle; // #2 + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3 + .Times(AtLeast(1)); + + Painter painter(&turtle); // #4 + + EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); // #5 +} +``` + +As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least +once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with +a message like this: + +```text +path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure +Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation: +Actually: never called; +Expected: called at least once. +Stack trace: +... +``` + +**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `` on +the line number to jump right to the failed expectation. + +**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't +happen. Therefore it's a good idea to turn on the heap checker in your tests +when you allocate mocks on the heap. You get that automatically if you use the +`gtest_main` library already. + +**Important note:** gMock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock +functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. Do not alternate +between calls to `EXPECT_CALL()` and calls to the mock functions, and do not set +any expectations on a mock after passing the mock to an API. + +This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur +*in the future*, not that a call has occurred. Why does gMock work like that? +Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows gMock to report a violation +as soon as it rises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. +This makes debugging much easier. + +Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve +the same effect without using gMock. However, as we shall reveal soon, gMock +allows you to do *so much more* with the mocks. + +## Setting Expectations + +The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the *right expectations* +on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result +of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want +to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you +intend it to catch. gMock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just +right." + +### General Syntax + +In gMock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock +method. The general syntax is: + +```cpp +EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) + .Times(cardinality) + .WillOnce(action) + .WillRepeatedly(action); +``` + +The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its +arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). +(Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.) +If the method is not overloaded, the macro can also be called without matchers: + +```cpp +EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, non-overloaded-method) + .Times(cardinality) + .WillOnce(action) + .WillRepeatedly(action); +``` + +This syntax allows the test writer to specify "called with any arguments" +without explicitly specifying the number or types of arguments. To avoid +unintended ambiguity, this syntax may only be used for methods that are not +overloaded. + +Either form of the macro can be followed by some optional *clauses* that provide +more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in +the coming sections. + +This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, +you can probably guess that + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .Times(5) + .WillOnce(Return(100)) + .WillOnce(Return(150)) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(200)); +``` + +says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it +will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. +Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL). + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? Well it serves two purposes: first +it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human +reader), and second it allows gMock to include the source file location of a +failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier. + +### Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? + +When a mock function takes arguments, we may specify what arguments we are +expecting, for example: + +```cpp +// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units. +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); +``` + +Oftentimes you do not want to be too specific. Remember that talk about tests +being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the +intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary—no +more, no less. If you aren't interested in the value of an argument, write `_` +as the argument, which means "anything goes": + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... +// Expects that the turtle jumps to somewhere on the x=50 line. +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(50, _)); +``` + +`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate +and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher +inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. `_` is a +convenient way of saying "any value". + +In the above examples, `100` and `50` are also matchers; implicitly, they are +the same as `Eq(100)` and `Eq(50)`, which specify that the argument must be +equal (using `operator==`) to the matcher argument. There are many +[built-in matchers](reference/matchers.md) for common types (as well as +[custom matchers](gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers)); for example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Ge; +... +// Expects the turtle moves forward by at least 100. +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); +``` + +If you don't care about *any* arguments, rather than specify `_` for each of +them you may instead omit the parameter list: + +```cpp +// Expects the turtle to move forward. +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward); +// Expects the turtle to jump somewhere. +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo); +``` + +This works for all non-overloaded methods; if a method is overloaded, you need +to help gMock resolve which overload is expected by specifying the number of +arguments and possibly also the +[types of the arguments](gmock_cook_book.md#SelectOverload). + +### Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? + +The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We +call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells *how many times* the call should +occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing +it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a +matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly. + +An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it +means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and +gMock will report a googletest failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) +called. + +We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the +list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see +[here](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList). + +The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, gMock will infer +the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember: + +* If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the + `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`. +* If there are *n* `WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where *n* >= + 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`. +* If there are *n* `WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where *n* >= + 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. + +**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be +called twice but actually called four times? + +### Actions: What Should It Do? + +Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as +users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in +gMock. + +First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, +the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a +`bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). In +addition, in C++ 11 and above, a mock function whose return type is +default-constructible (i.e. has a default constructor) has a default action of +returning a default-constructed value. If you don't say anything, this behavior +will be used. + +Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action +doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the +expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an +optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .WillOnce(Return(100)) + .WillOnce(Return(200)) + .WillOnce(Return(300)); +``` + +says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called *exactly three times* (gMock inferred +this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't +explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) + .WillOnce(Return(100)) + .WillOnce(Return(200)) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(300)); +``` + +says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called *at least twice* (gMock knows this as +we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no +explicit `Times()`), will return 100 and 200 respectively the first two times, +and 300 from the third time on. + +Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, gMock will not try to infer the +cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are +`WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, gMock will do +the *default* action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a +`WillRepeatedly()`.). + +What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a +reference using `ReturnRef(*variable*)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among +[others](gmock_cook_book.md#using-actions). + +**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause +only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you +must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +int n = 100; +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .Times(4) + .WillRepeatedly(Return(n++)); +``` + +Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will +always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` +will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will +return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every +time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the +[cook book](gmock_cook_book.md). + +Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) + .Times(4) + .WillOnce(Return(100)); +``` + +Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think +it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` +clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action +will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will +return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as +returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions. + +### Using Multiple Expectations {#MultiExpectations} + +So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More +realistically, you'll specify expectations on multiple mock methods which may be +from multiple mock objects. + +By default, when a mock method is invoked, gMock will search the expectations in +the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that +matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override +older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will +get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 + .Times(2); +``` + +If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an +error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, +the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, +as now #1 will be the matching expectation. + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** Why does gMock search for a match in the *reverse* order of the +expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default +expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase +and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test +body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the +one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule +would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it. + +{: .callout .tip} +**Tip:** It is very common to start with a catch-all expectation for a method +and `Times(AnyNumber())` (omitting arguments, or with `_` for all arguments, if +overloaded). This makes any calls to the method expected. This is not necessary +for methods that are not mentioned at all (these are "uninteresting"), but is +useful for methods that have some expectations, but for which other calls are +ok. See +[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](gmock_cook_book.md#uninteresting-vs-unexpected). + +### Ordered vs Unordered Calls {#OrderedCalls} + +By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation +hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the +order the expectations are specified. + +Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To +say this in gMock is easy: + +```cpp +using ::testing::InSequence; +... +TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { + ... + { + InSequence seq; + + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()); + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp()); + } + Foo(); +} +``` + +By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are +put into a *sequence* and have to occur *sequentially*. Since we are just +relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, +its name is really irrelevant. + +In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the +order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. + +(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of +them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! The +details can be found [here](gmock_cook_book.md#OrderedCalls).) + +### All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) {#StickyExpectations} + +Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. +How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin *exactly twice* +(you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? + +After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes +(solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::AnyNumber; +... +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 + .Times(AnyNumber()); +EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 + .Times(2); +``` + +Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, gMock will +see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the +last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two +such calls, gMock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've +told you in the [Using Multiple Expectations](#MultiExpectations) section above. + +This example shows that **expectations in gMock are "sticky" by default**, in +the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation +upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning +of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking +frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases +easier to express and understand.). + +Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code +say? + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .WillOnce(Return(10*i)); +} +``` + +If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will +return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we +said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, +the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately +lead to an "upper bound violated" error - this piece of code is not very useful! + +One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is +to explicitly say that the expectations are *not* sticky. In other words, they +should *retire* as soon as they are saturated: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); +} +``` + +And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur +in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the +order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence: + +```cpp +using ::testing::InSequence; +using ::testing::Return; +... +{ + InSequence s; + + for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { + EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) + .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); + } +} +``` + +By the way, the other situation where an expectation may *not* be sticky is when +it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the +sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to +match any call). + +### Uninteresting Calls + +A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. +For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and +`GetY()` get called. + +In gMock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about +it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, +but it won't be a failure. This is called "naggy" behavior; to change, see +[The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy](gmock_cook_book.md#NiceStrictNaggy). diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/index.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b162c74 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +# GoogleTest User's Guide + +## Welcome to GoogleTest! + +GoogleTest is Google's C++ testing and mocking framework. This user's guide has +the following contents: + +* [GoogleTest Primer](primer.md) - Teaches you how to write simple tests using + GoogleTest. Read this first if you are new to GoogleTest. +* [GoogleTest Advanced](advanced.md) - Read this when you've finished the + Primer and want to utilize GoogleTest to its full potential. +* [GoogleTest Samples](samples.md) - Describes some GoogleTest samples. +* [GoogleTest FAQ](faq.md) - Have a question? Want some tips? Check here + first. +* [Mocking for Dummies](gmock_for_dummies.md) - Teaches you how to create mock + objects and use them in tests. +* [Mocking Cookbook](gmock_cook_book.md) - Includes tips and approaches to + common mocking use cases. +* [Mocking Cheat Sheet](gmock_cheat_sheet.md) - A handy reference for + matchers, actions, invariants, and more. +* [Mocking FAQ](gmock_faq.md) - Contains answers to some mocking-specific + questions. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/pkgconfig.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/pkgconfig.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..768e9b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/pkgconfig.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +## Using GoogleTest from various build systems + +GoogleTest comes with pkg-config files that can be used to determine all +necessary flags for compiling and linking to GoogleTest (and GoogleMock). +Pkg-config is a standardised plain-text format containing + +* the includedir (-I) path +* necessary macro (-D) definitions +* further required flags (-pthread) +* the library (-L) path +* the library (-l) to link to + +All current build systems support pkg-config in one way or another. For all +examples here we assume you want to compile the sample +`samples/sample3_unittest.cc`. + +### CMake + +Using `pkg-config` in CMake is fairly easy: + +```cmake +cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.0) + +cmake_policy(SET CMP0048 NEW) +project(my_gtest_pkgconfig VERSION 0.0.1 LANGUAGES CXX) + +find_package(PkgConfig) +pkg_search_module(GTEST REQUIRED gtest_main) + +add_executable(testapp samples/sample3_unittest.cc) +target_link_libraries(testapp ${GTEST_LDFLAGS}) +target_compile_options(testapp PUBLIC ${GTEST_CFLAGS}) + +include(CTest) +add_test(first_and_only_test testapp) +``` + +It is generally recommended that you use `target_compile_options` + `_CFLAGS` +over `target_include_directories` + `_INCLUDE_DIRS` as the former includes not +just -I flags (GoogleTest might require a macro indicating to internal headers +that all libraries have been compiled with threading enabled. In addition, +GoogleTest might also require `-pthread` in the compiling step, and as such +splitting the pkg-config `Cflags` variable into include dirs and macros for +`target_compile_definitions()` might still miss this). The same recommendation +goes for using `_LDFLAGS` over the more commonplace `_LIBRARIES`, which happens +to discard `-L` flags and `-pthread`. + +### Help! pkg-config can't find GoogleTest! + +Let's say you have a `CMakeLists.txt` along the lines of the one in this +tutorial and you try to run `cmake`. It is very possible that you get a failure +along the lines of: + +``` +-- Checking for one of the modules 'gtest_main' +CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPkgConfig.cmake:640 (message): + None of the required 'gtest_main' found +``` + +These failures are common if you installed GoogleTest yourself and have not +sourced it from a distro or other package manager. If so, you need to tell +pkg-config where it can find the `.pc` files containing the information. Say you +installed GoogleTest to `/usr/local`, then it might be that the `.pc` files are +installed under `/usr/local/lib64/pkgconfig`. If you set + +``` +export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib64/pkgconfig +``` + +pkg-config will also try to look in `PKG_CONFIG_PATH` to find `gtest_main.pc`. + +### Using pkg-config in a cross-compilation setting + +Pkg-config can be used in a cross-compilation setting too. To do this, let's +assume the final prefix of the cross-compiled installation will be `/usr`, and +your sysroot is `/home/MYUSER/sysroot`. Configure and install GTest using + +``` +mkdir build && cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr .. +``` + +Install into the sysroot using `DESTDIR`: + +``` +make -j install DESTDIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot +``` + +Before we continue, it is recommended to **always** define the following two +variables for pkg-config in a cross-compilation setting: + +``` +export PKG_CONFIG_ALLOW_SYSTEM_CFLAGS=yes +export PKG_CONFIG_ALLOW_SYSTEM_LIBS=yes +``` + +otherwise `pkg-config` will filter `-I` and `-L` flags against standard prefixes +such as `/usr` (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28264#c3 for +reasons why this stripping needs to occur usually). + +If you look at the generated pkg-config file, it will look something like + +``` +libdir=/usr/lib64 +includedir=/usr/include + +Name: gtest +Description: GoogleTest (without main() function) +Version: 1.10.0 +URL: https://github.com/google/googletest +Libs: -L${libdir} -lgtest -lpthread +Cflags: -I${includedir} -DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread +``` + +Notice that the sysroot is not included in `libdir` and `includedir`! If you try +to run `pkg-config` with the correct +`PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/lib64/pkgconfig` against this `.pc` +file, you will get + +``` +$ pkg-config --cflags gtest +-DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread -I/usr/include +$ pkg-config --libs gtest +-L/usr/lib64 -lgtest -lpthread +``` + +which is obviously wrong and points to the `CBUILD` and not `CHOST` root. In +order to use this in a cross-compilation setting, we need to tell pkg-config to +inject the actual sysroot into `-I` and `-L` variables. Let us now tell +pkg-config about the actual sysroot + +``` +export PKG_CONFIG_DIR= +export PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot +export PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR=${PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR}/usr/lib64/pkgconfig +``` + +and running `pkg-config` again we get + +``` +$ pkg-config --cflags gtest +-DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread -I/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/include +$ pkg-config --libs gtest +-L/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/lib64 -lgtest -lpthread +``` + +which contains the correct sysroot now. For a more comprehensive guide to also +including `${CHOST}` in build system calls, see the excellent tutorial by Diego +Elio Pettenò: diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/platforms.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/platforms.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eba6ef8 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/platforms.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +# Supported Platforms + +GoogleTest requires a codebase and compiler compliant with the C++11 standard or +newer. + +The GoogleTest code is officially supported on the following platforms. +Operating systems or tools not listed below are community-supported. For +community-supported platforms, patches that do not complicate the code may be +considered. + +If you notice any problems on your platform, please file an issue on the +[GoogleTest GitHub Issue Tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues). +Pull requests containing fixes are welcome! + +### Operating systems + +* Linux +* macOS +* Windows + +### Compilers + +* gcc 5.0+ +* clang 5.0+ +* MSVC 2015+ + +**macOS users:** Xcode 9.3+ provides clang 5.0+. + +### Build systems + +* [Bazel](https://bazel.build/) +* [CMake](https://cmake.org/) + +Bazel is the build system used by the team internally and in tests. CMake is +supported on a best-effort basis and by the community. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/primer.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/primer.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d8fdf4 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/primer.md @@ -0,0 +1,482 @@ +# Googletest Primer + +## Introduction: Why googletest? + +*googletest* helps you write better C++ tests. + +googletest is a testing framework developed by the Testing Technology team with +Google's specific requirements and constraints in mind. Whether you work on +Linux, Windows, or a Mac, if you write C++ code, googletest can help you. And it +supports *any* kind of tests, not just unit tests. + +So what makes a good test, and how does googletest fit in? We believe: + +1. Tests should be *independent* and *repeatable*. It's a pain to debug a test + that succeeds or fails as a result of other tests. googletest isolates the + tests by running each of them on a different object. When a test fails, + googletest allows you to run it in isolation for quick debugging. +2. Tests should be well *organized* and reflect the structure of the tested + code. googletest groups related tests into test suites that can share data + and subroutines. This common pattern is easy to recognize and makes tests + easy to maintain. Such consistency is especially helpful when people switch + projects and start to work on a new code base. +3. Tests should be *portable* and *reusable*. Google has a lot of code that is + platform-neutral; its tests should also be platform-neutral. googletest + works on different OSes, with different compilers, with or without + exceptions, so googletest tests can work with a variety of configurations. +4. When tests fail, they should provide as much *information* about the problem + as possible. googletest doesn't stop at the first test failure. Instead, it + only stops the current test and continues with the next. You can also set up + tests that report non-fatal failures after which the current test continues. + Thus, you can detect and fix multiple bugs in a single run-edit-compile + cycle. +5. The testing framework should liberate test writers from housekeeping chores + and let them focus on the test *content*. googletest automatically keeps + track of all tests defined, and doesn't require the user to enumerate them + in order to run them. +6. Tests should be *fast*. With googletest, you can reuse shared resources + across tests and pay for the set-up/tear-down only once, without making + tests depend on each other. + +Since googletest is based on the popular xUnit architecture, you'll feel right +at home if you've used JUnit or PyUnit before. If not, it will take you about 10 +minutes to learn the basics and get started. So let's go! + +## Beware of the nomenclature + +{: .callout .note} +_Note:_ There might be some confusion arising from different definitions of the +terms _Test_, _Test Case_ and _Test Suite_, so beware of misunderstanding these. + +Historically, googletest started to use the term _Test Case_ for grouping +related tests, whereas current publications, including International Software +Testing Qualifications Board ([ISTQB](http://www.istqb.org/)) materials and +various textbooks on software quality, use the term +_[Test Suite][istqb test suite]_ for this. + +The related term _Test_, as it is used in googletest, corresponds to the term +_[Test Case][istqb test case]_ of ISTQB and others. + +The term _Test_ is commonly of broad enough sense, including ISTQB's definition +of _Test Case_, so it's not much of a problem here. But the term _Test Case_ as +was used in Google Test is of contradictory sense and thus confusing. + +googletest recently started replacing the term _Test Case_ with _Test Suite_. +The preferred API is *TestSuite*. The older TestCase API is being slowly +deprecated and refactored away. + +So please be aware of the different definitions of the terms: + + +Meaning | googletest Term | [ISTQB](http://www.istqb.org/) Term +:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------- | :---------------------------------- +Exercise a particular program path with specific input values and verify the results | [TEST()](#simple-tests) | [Test Case][istqb test case] + + +[istqb test case]: http://glossary.istqb.org/en/search/test%20case +[istqb test suite]: http://glossary.istqb.org/en/search/test%20suite + +## Basic Concepts + +When using googletest, you start by writing *assertions*, which are statements +that check whether a condition is true. An assertion's result can be *success*, +*nonfatal failure*, or *fatal failure*. If a fatal failure occurs, it aborts the +current function; otherwise the program continues normally. + +*Tests* use assertions to verify the tested code's behavior. If a test crashes +or has a failed assertion, then it *fails*; otherwise it *succeeds*. + +A *test suite* contains one or many tests. You should group your tests into test +suites that reflect the structure of the tested code. When multiple tests in a +test suite need to share common objects and subroutines, you can put them into a +*test fixture* class. + +A *test program* can contain multiple test suites. + +We'll now explain how to write a test program, starting at the individual +assertion level and building up to tests and test suites. + +## Assertions + +googletest assertions are macros that resemble function calls. You test a class +or function by making assertions about its behavior. When an assertion fails, +googletest prints the assertion's source file and line number location, along +with a failure message. You may also supply a custom failure message which will +be appended to googletest's message. + +The assertions come in pairs that test the same thing but have different effects +on the current function. `ASSERT_*` versions generate fatal failures when they +fail, and **abort the current function**. `EXPECT_*` versions generate nonfatal +failures, which don't abort the current function. Usually `EXPECT_*` are +preferred, as they allow more than one failure to be reported in a test. +However, you should use `ASSERT_*` if it doesn't make sense to continue when the +assertion in question fails. + +Since a failed `ASSERT_*` returns from the current function immediately, +possibly skipping clean-up code that comes after it, it may cause a space leak. +Depending on the nature of the leak, it may or may not be worth fixing - so keep +this in mind if you get a heap checker error in addition to assertion errors. + +To provide a custom failure message, simply stream it into the macro using the +`<<` operator or a sequence of such operators. See the following example, using +the [`ASSERT_EQ` and `EXPECT_EQ`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_EQ) macros to +verify value equality: + +```c++ +ASSERT_EQ(x.size(), y.size()) << "Vectors x and y are of unequal length"; + +for (int i = 0; i < x.size(); ++i) { + EXPECT_EQ(x[i], y[i]) << "Vectors x and y differ at index " << i; +} +``` + +Anything that can be streamed to an `ostream` can be streamed to an assertion +macro--in particular, C strings and `string` objects. If a wide string +(`wchar_t*`, `TCHAR*` in `UNICODE` mode on Windows, or `std::wstring`) is +streamed to an assertion, it will be translated to UTF-8 when printed. + +GoogleTest provides a collection of assertions for verifying the behavior of +your code in various ways. You can check Boolean conditions, compare values +based on relational operators, verify string values, floating-point values, and +much more. There are even assertions that enable you to verify more complex +states by providing custom predicates. For the complete list of assertions +provided by GoogleTest, see the [Assertions Reference](reference/assertions.md). + +## Simple Tests + +To create a test: + +1. Use the `TEST()` macro to define and name a test function. These are + ordinary C++ functions that don't return a value. +2. In this function, along with any valid C++ statements you want to include, + use the various googletest assertions to check values. +3. The test's result is determined by the assertions; if any assertion in the + test fails (either fatally or non-fatally), or if the test crashes, the + entire test fails. Otherwise, it succeeds. + +```c++ +TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName) { + ... test body ... +} +``` + +`TEST()` arguments go from general to specific. The *first* argument is the name +of the test suite, and the *second* argument is the test's name within the test +suite. Both names must be valid C++ identifiers, and they should not contain +any underscores (`_`). A test's *full name* consists of its containing test suite and +its individual name. Tests from different test suites can have the same +individual name. + +For example, let's take a simple integer function: + +```c++ +int Factorial(int n); // Returns the factorial of n +``` + +A test suite for this function might look like: + +```c++ +// Tests factorial of 0. +TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesZeroInput) { + EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(0), 1); +} + +// Tests factorial of positive numbers. +TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesPositiveInput) { + EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(1), 1); + EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(2), 2); + EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(3), 6); + EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(8), 40320); +} +``` + +googletest groups the test results by test suites, so logically related tests +should be in the same test suite; in other words, the first argument to their +`TEST()` should be the same. In the above example, we have two tests, +`HandlesZeroInput` and `HandlesPositiveInput`, that belong to the same test +suite `FactorialTest`. + +When naming your test suites and tests, you should follow the same convention as +for +[naming functions and classes](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Function_Names). + +**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac. + +## Test Fixtures: Using the Same Data Configuration for Multiple Tests {#same-data-multiple-tests} + +If you find yourself writing two or more tests that operate on similar data, you +can use a *test fixture*. This allows you to reuse the same configuration of +objects for several different tests. + +To create a fixture: + +1. Derive a class from `::testing::Test` . Start its body with `protected:`, as + we'll want to access fixture members from sub-classes. +2. Inside the class, declare any objects you plan to use. +3. If necessary, write a default constructor or `SetUp()` function to prepare + the objects for each test. A common mistake is to spell `SetUp()` as + **`Setup()`** with a small `u` - Use `override` in C++11 to make sure you + spelled it correctly. +4. If necessary, write a destructor or `TearDown()` function to release any + resources you allocated in `SetUp()` . To learn when you should use the + constructor/destructor and when you should use `SetUp()/TearDown()`, read + the [FAQ](faq.md#CtorVsSetUp). +5. If needed, define subroutines for your tests to share. + +When using a fixture, use `TEST_F()` instead of `TEST()` as it allows you to +access objects and subroutines in the test fixture: + +```c++ +TEST_F(TestFixtureName, TestName) { + ... test body ... +} +``` + +Like `TEST()`, the first argument is the test suite name, but for `TEST_F()` +this must be the name of the test fixture class. You've probably guessed: `_F` +is for fixture. + +Unfortunately, the C++ macro system does not allow us to create a single macro +that can handle both types of tests. Using the wrong macro causes a compiler +error. + +Also, you must first define a test fixture class before using it in a +`TEST_F()`, or you'll get the compiler error "`virtual outside class +declaration`". + +For each test defined with `TEST_F()`, googletest will create a *fresh* test +fixture at runtime, immediately initialize it via `SetUp()`, run the test, +clean up by calling `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture. Note that +different tests in the same test suite have different test fixture objects, and +googletest always deletes a test fixture before it creates the next one. +googletest does **not** reuse the same test fixture for multiple tests. Any +changes one test makes to the fixture do not affect other tests. + +As an example, let's write tests for a FIFO queue class named `Queue`, which has +the following interface: + +```c++ +template // E is the element type. +class Queue { + public: + Queue(); + void Enqueue(const E& element); + E* Dequeue(); // Returns NULL if the queue is empty. + size_t size() const; + ... +}; +``` + +First, define a fixture class. By convention, you should give it the name +`FooTest` where `Foo` is the class being tested. + +```c++ +class QueueTest : public ::testing::Test { + protected: + void SetUp() override { + q1_.Enqueue(1); + q2_.Enqueue(2); + q2_.Enqueue(3); + } + + // void TearDown() override {} + + Queue q0_; + Queue q1_; + Queue q2_; +}; +``` + +In this case, `TearDown()` is not needed since we don't have to clean up after +each test, other than what's already done by the destructor. + +Now we'll write tests using `TEST_F()` and this fixture. + +```c++ +TEST_F(QueueTest, IsEmptyInitially) { + EXPECT_EQ(q0_.size(), 0); +} + +TEST_F(QueueTest, DequeueWorks) { + int* n = q0_.Dequeue(); + EXPECT_EQ(n, nullptr); + + n = q1_.Dequeue(); + ASSERT_NE(n, nullptr); + EXPECT_EQ(*n, 1); + EXPECT_EQ(q1_.size(), 0); + delete n; + + n = q2_.Dequeue(); + ASSERT_NE(n, nullptr); + EXPECT_EQ(*n, 2); + EXPECT_EQ(q2_.size(), 1); + delete n; +} +``` + +The above uses both `ASSERT_*` and `EXPECT_*` assertions. The rule of thumb is +to use `EXPECT_*` when you want the test to continue to reveal more errors after +the assertion failure, and use `ASSERT_*` when continuing after failure doesn't +make sense. For example, the second assertion in the `Dequeue` test is +`ASSERT_NE(n, nullptr)`, as we need to dereference the pointer `n` later, which +would lead to a segfault when `n` is `NULL`. + +When these tests run, the following happens: + +1. googletest constructs a `QueueTest` object (let's call it `t1`). +2. `t1.SetUp()` initializes `t1`. +3. The first test (`IsEmptyInitially`) runs on `t1`. +4. `t1.TearDown()` cleans up after the test finishes. +5. `t1` is destructed. +6. The above steps are repeated on another `QueueTest` object, this time + running the `DequeueWorks` test. + +**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac. + +## Invoking the Tests + +`TEST()` and `TEST_F()` implicitly register their tests with googletest. So, +unlike with many other C++ testing frameworks, you don't have to re-list all +your defined tests in order to run them. + +After defining your tests, you can run them with `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, which +returns `0` if all the tests are successful, or `1` otherwise. Note that +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()` runs *all tests* in your link unit--they can be from +different test suites, or even different source files. + +When invoked, the `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` macro: + +* Saves the state of all googletest flags. + +* Creates a test fixture object for the first test. + +* Initializes it via `SetUp()`. + +* Runs the test on the fixture object. + +* Cleans up the fixture via `TearDown()`. + +* Deletes the fixture. + +* Restores the state of all googletest flags. + +* Repeats the above steps for the next test, until all tests have run. + +If a fatal failure happens the subsequent steps will be skipped. + +{: .callout .important} +> IMPORTANT: You must **not** ignore the return value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, or +> you will get a compiler error. The rationale for this design is that the +> automated testing service determines whether a test has passed based on its +> exit code, not on its stdout/stderr output; thus your `main()` function must +> return the value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`. +> +> Also, you should call `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` only **once**. Calling it more than +> once conflicts with some advanced googletest features (e.g., thread-safe +> [death tests](advanced.md#death-tests)) and thus is not supported. + +**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac. + +## Writing the main() Function + +Most users should _not_ need to write their own `main` function and instead link +with `gtest_main` (as opposed to with `gtest`), which defines a suitable entry +point. See the end of this section for details. The remainder of this section +should only apply when you need to do something custom before the tests run that +cannot be expressed within the framework of fixtures and test suites. + +If you write your own `main` function, it should return the value of +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`. + +You can start from this boilerplate: + +```c++ +#include "this/package/foo.h" + +#include "gtest/gtest.h" + +namespace my { +namespace project { +namespace { + +// The fixture for testing class Foo. +class FooTest : public ::testing::Test { + protected: + // You can remove any or all of the following functions if their bodies would + // be empty. + + FooTest() { + // You can do set-up work for each test here. + } + + ~FooTest() override { + // You can do clean-up work that doesn't throw exceptions here. + } + + // If the constructor and destructor are not enough for setting up + // and cleaning up each test, you can define the following methods: + + void SetUp() override { + // Code here will be called immediately after the constructor (right + // before each test). + } + + void TearDown() override { + // Code here will be called immediately after each test (right + // before the destructor). + } + + // Class members declared here can be used by all tests in the test suite + // for Foo. +}; + +// Tests that the Foo::Bar() method does Abc. +TEST_F(FooTest, MethodBarDoesAbc) { + const std::string input_filepath = "this/package/testdata/myinputfile.dat"; + const std::string output_filepath = "this/package/testdata/myoutputfile.dat"; + Foo f; + EXPECT_EQ(f.Bar(input_filepath, output_filepath), 0); +} + +// Tests that Foo does Xyz. +TEST_F(FooTest, DoesXyz) { + // Exercises the Xyz feature of Foo. +} + +} // namespace +} // namespace project +} // namespace my + +int main(int argc, char **argv) { + ::testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv); + return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); +} +``` + +The `::testing::InitGoogleTest()` function parses the command line for +googletest flags, and removes all recognized flags. This allows the user to +control a test program's behavior via various flags, which we'll cover in +the [AdvancedGuide](advanced.md). You **must** call this function before calling +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, or the flags won't be properly initialized. + +On Windows, `InitGoogleTest()` also works with wide strings, so it can be used +in programs compiled in `UNICODE` mode as well. + +But maybe you think that writing all those `main` functions is too much work? We +agree with you completely, and that's why Google Test provides a basic +implementation of main(). If it fits your needs, then just link your test with +the `gtest_main` library and you are good to go. + +{: .callout .note} +NOTE: `ParseGUnitFlags()` is deprecated in favor of `InitGoogleTest()`. + +## Known Limitations + +* Google Test is designed to be thread-safe. The implementation is thread-safe + on systems where the `pthreads` library is available. It is currently + _unsafe_ to use Google Test assertions from two threads concurrently on + other systems (e.g. Windows). In most tests this is not an issue as usually + the assertions are done in the main thread. If you want to help, you can + volunteer to implement the necessary synchronization primitives in + `gtest-port.h` for your platform. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-bazel.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-bazel.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..362ee6d --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-bazel.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +# Quickstart: Building with Bazel + +This tutorial aims to get you up and running with GoogleTest using the Bazel +build system. If you're using GoogleTest for the first time or need a refresher, +we recommend this tutorial as a starting point. + +## Prerequisites + +To complete this tutorial, you'll need: + +* A compatible operating system (e.g. Linux, macOS, Windows). +* A compatible C++ compiler that supports at least C++11. +* [Bazel](https://bazel.build/), the preferred build system used by the + GoogleTest team. + +See [Supported Platforms](platforms.md) for more information about platforms +compatible with GoogleTest. + +If you don't already have Bazel installed, see the +[Bazel installation guide](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/install.html). + +{: .callout .note} +Note: The terminal commands in this tutorial show a Unix shell prompt, but the +commands work on the Windows command line as well. + +## Set up a Bazel workspace + +A +[Bazel workspace](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/build-ref.html#workspace) +is a directory on your filesystem that you use to manage source files for the +software you want to build. Each workspace directory has a text file named +`WORKSPACE` which may be empty, or may contain references to external +dependencies required to build the outputs. + +First, create a directory for your workspace: + +``` +$ mkdir my_workspace && cd my_workspace +``` + +Next, you’ll create the `WORKSPACE` file to specify dependencies. A common and +recommended way to depend on GoogleTest is to use a +[Bazel external dependency](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/external.html) +via the +[`http_archive` rule](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/repo/http.html#http_archive). +To do this, in the root directory of your workspace (`my_workspace/`), create a +file named `WORKSPACE` with the following contents: + +``` +load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") + +http_archive( + name = "com_google_googletest", + urls = ["https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5.zip"], + strip_prefix = "googletest-609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5", +) +``` + +The above configuration declares a dependency on GoogleTest which is downloaded +as a ZIP archive from GitHub. In the above example, +`609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5` is the Git commit hash of the +GoogleTest version to use; we recommend updating the hash often to point to the +latest version. + +Bazel also needs a dependency on the +[`rules_cc` repository](https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_cc) to build C++ +code, so add the following to the `WORKSPACE` file: + +``` +http_archive( + name = "rules_cc", + urls = ["https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_cc/archive/40548a2974f1aea06215272d9c2b47a14a24e556.zip"], + strip_prefix = "rules_cc-40548a2974f1aea06215272d9c2b47a14a24e556", +) +``` + +Now you're ready to build C++ code that uses GoogleTest. + +## Create and run a binary + +With your Bazel workspace set up, you can now use GoogleTest code within your +own project. + +As an example, create a file named `hello_test.cc` in your `my_workspace` +directory with the following contents: + +```cpp +#include + +// Demonstrate some basic assertions. +TEST(HelloTest, BasicAssertions) { + // Expect two strings not to be equal. + EXPECT_STRNE("hello", "world"); + // Expect equality. + EXPECT_EQ(7 * 6, 42); +} +``` + +GoogleTest provides [assertions](primer.md#assertions) that you use to test the +behavior of your code. The above sample includes the main GoogleTest header file +and demonstrates some basic assertions. + +To build the code, create a file named `BUILD` in the same directory with the +following contents: + +``` +load("@rules_cc//cc:defs.bzl", "cc_test") + +cc_test( + name = "hello_test", + size = "small", + srcs = ["hello_test.cc"], + deps = ["@com_google_googletest//:gtest_main"], +) +``` + +This `cc_test` rule declares the C++ test binary you want to build, and links to +GoogleTest (`//:gtest_main`) using the prefix you specified in the `WORKSPACE` +file (`@com_google_googletest`). For more information about Bazel `BUILD` files, +see the +[Bazel C++ Tutorial](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/tutorial/cpp.html). + +Now you can build and run your test: + +
+my_workspace$ bazel test --test_output=all //:hello_test
+INFO: Analyzed target //:hello_test (26 packages loaded, 362 targets configured).
+INFO: Found 1 test target...
+INFO: From Testing //:hello_test:
+==================== Test output for //:hello_test:
+Running main() from gmock_main.cc
+[==========] Running 1 test from 1 test suite.
+[----------] Global test environment set-up.
+[----------] 1 test from HelloTest
+[ RUN      ] HelloTest.BasicAssertions
+[       OK ] HelloTest.BasicAssertions (0 ms)
+[----------] 1 test from HelloTest (0 ms total)
+
+[----------] Global test environment tear-down
+[==========] 1 test from 1 test suite ran. (0 ms total)
+[  PASSED  ] 1 test.
+================================================================================
+Target //:hello_test up-to-date:
+  bazel-bin/hello_test
+INFO: Elapsed time: 4.190s, Critical Path: 3.05s
+INFO: 27 processes: 8 internal, 19 linux-sandbox.
+INFO: Build completed successfully, 27 total actions
+//:hello_test                                                     PASSED in 0.1s
+
+INFO: Build completed successfully, 27 total actions
+
+ +Congratulations! You've successfully built and run a test binary using +GoogleTest. + +## Next steps + +* [Check out the Primer](primer.md) to start learning how to write simple + tests. +* [See the code samples](samples.md) for more examples showing how to use a + variety of GoogleTest features. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-cmake.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-cmake.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..420f1d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/quickstart-cmake.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +# Quickstart: Building with CMake + +This tutorial aims to get you up and running with GoogleTest using CMake. If +you're using GoogleTest for the first time or need a refresher, we recommend +this tutorial as a starting point. If your project uses Bazel, see the +[Quickstart for Bazel](quickstart-bazel.md) instead. + +## Prerequisites + +To complete this tutorial, you'll need: + +* A compatible operating system (e.g. Linux, macOS, Windows). +* A compatible C++ compiler that supports at least C++11. +* [CMake](https://cmake.org/) and a compatible build tool for building the + project. + * Compatible build tools include + [Make](https://www.gnu.org/software/make/), + [Ninja](https://ninja-build.org/), and others - see + [CMake Generators](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-generators.7.html) + for more information. + +See [Supported Platforms](platforms.md) for more information about platforms +compatible with GoogleTest. + +If you don't already have CMake installed, see the +[CMake installation guide](https://cmake.org/install). + +{: .callout .note} +Note: The terminal commands in this tutorial show a Unix shell prompt, but the +commands work on the Windows command line as well. + +## Set up a project + +CMake uses a file named `CMakeLists.txt` to configure the build system for a +project. You'll use this file to set up your project and declare a dependency on +GoogleTest. + +First, create a directory for your project: + +``` +$ mkdir my_project && cd my_project +``` + +Next, you'll create the `CMakeLists.txt` file and declare a dependency on +GoogleTest. There are many ways to express dependencies in the CMake ecosystem; +in this quickstart, you'll use the +[`FetchContent` CMake module](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/FetchContent.html). +To do this, in your project directory (`my_project`), create a file named +`CMakeLists.txt` with the following contents: + +```cmake +cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.14) +project(my_project) + +# GoogleTest requires at least C++11 +set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11) + +include(FetchContent) +FetchContent_Declare( + googletest + URL https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5.zip +) +# For Windows: Prevent overriding the parent project's compiler/linker settings +set(gtest_force_shared_crt ON CACHE BOOL "" FORCE) +FetchContent_MakeAvailable(googletest) +``` + +The above configuration declares a dependency on GoogleTest which is downloaded +from GitHub. In the above example, `609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5` is +the Git commit hash of the GoogleTest version to use; we recommend updating the +hash often to point to the latest version. + +For more information about how to create `CMakeLists.txt` files, see the +[CMake Tutorial](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/guide/tutorial/index.html). + +## Create and run a binary + +With GoogleTest declared as a dependency, you can use GoogleTest code within +your own project. + +As an example, create a file named `hello_test.cc` in your `my_project` +directory with the following contents: + +```cpp +#include + +// Demonstrate some basic assertions. +TEST(HelloTest, BasicAssertions) { + // Expect two strings not to be equal. + EXPECT_STRNE("hello", "world"); + // Expect equality. + EXPECT_EQ(7 * 6, 42); +} +``` + +GoogleTest provides [assertions](primer.md#assertions) that you use to test the +behavior of your code. The above sample includes the main GoogleTest header file +and demonstrates some basic assertions. + +To build the code, add the following to the end of your `CMakeLists.txt` file: + +```cmake +enable_testing() + +add_executable( + hello_test + hello_test.cc +) +target_link_libraries( + hello_test + gtest_main +) + +include(GoogleTest) +gtest_discover_tests(hello_test) +``` + +The above configuration enables testing in CMake, declares the C++ test binary +you want to build (`hello_test`), and links it to GoogleTest (`gtest_main`). The +last two lines enable CMake's test runner to discover the tests included in the +binary, using the +[`GoogleTest` CMake module](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/git-stage/module/GoogleTest.html). + +Now you can build and run your test: + +
+my_project$ cmake -S . -B build
+-- The C compiler identification is GNU 10.2.1
+-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 10.2.1
+...
+-- Build files have been written to: .../my_project/build
+
+my_project$ cmake --build build
+Scanning dependencies of target gtest
+...
+[100%] Built target gmock_main
+
+my_project$ cd build && ctest
+Test project .../my_project/build
+    Start 1: HelloTest.BasicAssertions
+1/1 Test #1: HelloTest.BasicAssertions ........   Passed    0.00 sec
+
+100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1
+
+Total Test time (real) =   0.01 sec
+
+ +Congratulations! You've successfully built and run a test binary using +GoogleTest. + +## Next steps + +* [Check out the Primer](primer.md) to start learning how to write simple + tests. +* [See the code samples](samples.md) for more examples showing how to use a + variety of GoogleTest features. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/actions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/actions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..166d2a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/actions.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +# Actions Reference + +[**Actions**](../gmock_for_dummies.md#actions-what-should-it-do) specify what a +mock function should do when invoked. This page lists the built-in actions +provided by GoogleTest. All actions are defined in the `::testing` namespace. + +## Returning a Value + +| | | +| :-------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------- | +| `Return()` | Return from a `void` mock function. | +| `Return(value)` | Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type at the time the expectation is set, not when the action is executed. | +| `ReturnArg()` | Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | +| `ReturnNew(a1, ..., ak)` | Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time. | +| `ReturnNull()` | Return a null pointer. | +| `ReturnPointee(ptr)` | Return the value pointed to by `ptr`. | +| `ReturnRef(variable)` | Return a reference to `variable`. | +| `ReturnRefOfCopy(value)` | Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action. | +| `ReturnRoundRobin({a1, ..., ak})` | Each call will return the next `ai` in the list, starting at the beginning when the end of the list is reached. | + +## Side Effects + +| | | +| :--------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- | +| `Assign(&variable, value)` | Assign `value` to variable. | +| `DeleteArg()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. | +| `SaveArg(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | +| `SaveArgPointee(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | +| `SetArgReferee(value)` | Assign `value` to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | +| `SetArgPointee(value)` | Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | +| `SetArgumentPointee(value)` | Same as `SetArgPointee(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0. | +| `SetArrayArgument(first, last)` | Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range. | +| `SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)` | Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`. | +| `Throw(exception)` | Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0. | + +## Using a Function, Functor, or Lambda as an Action + +In the following, by "callable" we mean a free function, `std::function`, +functor, or lambda. + +| | | +| :---------------------------------- | :------------------------------------- | +| `f` | Invoke f with the arguments passed to the mock function, where f is a callable. | +| `Invoke(f)` | Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor. | +| `Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)` | Invoke the method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. | +| `InvokeWithoutArgs(f)` | Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. | +| `InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)` | Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. | +| `InvokeArgument(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)` | Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments. | + +The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value of the +action. + +When defining a callable to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused +parameters as `Unused`: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Invoke; +double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); } +... +EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance)); +``` + +`Invoke(callback)` and `InvokeWithoutArgs(callback)` take ownership of +`callback`, which must be permanent. The type of `callback` must be a base +callback type instead of a derived one, e.g. + +```cpp + BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure; + ... Invoke(done) ...; // This won't compile! + + Closure* done2 = new BlockingClosure; + ... Invoke(done2) ...; // This works. +``` + +In `InvokeArgument(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, +wrap it inside `std::ref()`. For example, + +```cpp +using ::testing::InvokeArgument; +... +InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), std::ref(foo)) +``` + +calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by +value, and `foo` by reference. + +## Default Action + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------ | :----------------------------------------------------- | +| `DoDefault()` | Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one). | + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a +composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error. + +## Composite Actions + +| | | +| :----------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ | +| `DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)` | Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void and will receive a readonly view of the arguments. | +| `IgnoreResult(a)` | Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. | +| `WithArg(a)` | Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | +| `WithArgs(a)` | Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | +| `WithoutArgs(a)` | Perform action `a` without any arguments. | + +## Defining Actions + +| | | +| :--------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- | +| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. | +| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. | +| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. | + +The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/assertions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/assertions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7bf03a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/assertions.md @@ -0,0 +1,633 @@ +# Assertions Reference + +This page lists the assertion macros provided by GoogleTest for verifying code +behavior. To use them, include the header `gtest/gtest.h`. + +The majority of the macros listed below come as a pair with an `EXPECT_` variant +and an `ASSERT_` variant. Upon failure, `EXPECT_` macros generate nonfatal +failures and allow the current function to continue running, while `ASSERT_` +macros generate fatal failures and abort the current function. + +All assertion macros support streaming a custom failure message into them with +the `<<` operator, for example: + +```cpp +EXPECT_TRUE(my_condition) << "My condition is not true"; +``` + +Anything that can be streamed to an `ostream` can be streamed to an assertion +macro—in particular, C strings and string objects. If a wide string (`wchar_t*`, +`TCHAR*` in `UNICODE` mode on Windows, or `std::wstring`) is streamed to an +assertion, it will be translated to UTF-8 when printed. + +## Explicit Success and Failure {#success-failure} + +The assertions in this section generate a success or failure directly instead of +testing a value or expression. These are useful when control flow, rather than a +Boolean expression, determines the test's success or failure, as shown by the +following example: + +```c++ +switch(expression) { + case 1: + ... some checks ... + case 2: + ... some other checks ... + default: + FAIL() << "We shouldn't get here."; +} +``` + +### SUCCEED {#SUCCEED} + +`SUCCEED()` + +Generates a success. This *does not* make the overall test succeed. A test is +considered successful only if none of its assertions fail during its execution. + +The `SUCCEED` assertion is purely documentary and currently doesn't generate any +user-visible output. However, we may add `SUCCEED` messages to GoogleTest output +in the future. + +### FAIL {#FAIL} + +`FAIL()` + +Generates a fatal failure, which returns from the current function. + +Can only be used in functions that return `void`. See +[Assertion Placement](../advanced.md#assertion-placement) for more information. + +### ADD_FAILURE {#ADD_FAILURE} + +`ADD_FAILURE()` + +Generates a nonfatal failure, which allows the current function to continue +running. + +### ADD_FAILURE_AT {#ADD_FAILURE_AT} + +`ADD_FAILURE_AT(`*`file_path`*`,`*`line_number`*`)` + +Generates a nonfatal failure at the file and line number specified. + +## Generalized Assertion {#generalized} + +The following assertion allows [matchers](matchers.md) to be used to verify +values. + +### EXPECT_THAT {#EXPECT_THAT} + +`EXPECT_THAT(`*`value`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_THAT(`*`value`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` + +Verifies that *`value`* matches the [matcher](matchers.md) *`matcher`*. + +For example, the following code verifies that the string `value1` starts with +`"Hello"`, `value2` matches a regular expression, and `value3` is between 5 and +10: + +```cpp +#include "gmock/gmock.h" + +using ::testing::AllOf; +using ::testing::Gt; +using ::testing::Lt; +using ::testing::MatchesRegex; +using ::testing::StartsWith; + +... +EXPECT_THAT(value1, StartsWith("Hello")); +EXPECT_THAT(value2, MatchesRegex("Line \\d+")); +ASSERT_THAT(value3, AllOf(Gt(5), Lt(10))); +``` + +Matchers enable assertions of this form to read like English and generate +informative failure messages. For example, if the above assertion on `value1` +fails, the resulting message will be similar to the following: + +``` +Value of: value1 + Actual: "Hi, world!" +Expected: starts with "Hello" +``` + +GoogleTest provides a built-in library of matchers—see the +[Matchers Reference](matchers.md). It is also possible to write your own +matchers—see [Writing New Matchers Quickly](../gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers). +The use of matchers makes `EXPECT_THAT` a powerful, extensible assertion. + +*The idea for this assertion was borrowed from Joe Walnes' Hamcrest project, +which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.* + +## Boolean Conditions {#boolean} + +The following assertions test Boolean conditions. + +### EXPECT_TRUE {#EXPECT_TRUE} + +`EXPECT_TRUE(`*`condition`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_TRUE(`*`condition`*`)` + +Verifies that *`condition`* is true. + +### EXPECT_FALSE {#EXPECT_FALSE} + +`EXPECT_FALSE(`*`condition`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_FALSE(`*`condition`*`)` + +Verifies that *`condition`* is false. + +## Binary Comparison {#binary-comparison} + +The following assertions compare two values. The value arguments must be +comparable by the assertion's comparison operator, otherwise a compiler error +will result. + +If an argument supports the `<<` operator, it will be called to print the +argument when the assertion fails. Otherwise, GoogleTest will attempt to print +them in the best way it can—see +[Teaching GoogleTest How to Print Your Values](../advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values). + +Arguments are always evaluated exactly once, so it's OK for the arguments to +have side effects. However, the argument evaluation order is undefined and +programs should not depend on any particular argument evaluation order. + +These assertions work with both narrow and wide string objects (`string` and +`wstring`). + +See also the [Floating-Point Comparison](#floating-point) assertions to compare +floating-point numbers and avoid problems caused by rounding. + +### EXPECT_EQ {#EXPECT_EQ} + +`EXPECT_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`==`*`val2`*. + +Does pointer equality on pointers. If used on two C strings, it tests if they +are in the same memory location, not if they have the same value. Use +[`EXPECT_STREQ`](#EXPECT_STREQ) to compare C strings (e.g. `const char*`) by +value. + +When comparing a pointer to `NULL`, use `EXPECT_EQ(`*`ptr`*`, nullptr)` instead +of `EXPECT_EQ(`*`ptr`*`, NULL)`. + +### EXPECT_NE {#EXPECT_NE} + +`EXPECT_NE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_NE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`!=`*`val2`*. + +Does pointer equality on pointers. If used on two C strings, it tests if they +are in different memory locations, not if they have different values. Use +[`EXPECT_STRNE`](#EXPECT_STRNE) to compare C strings (e.g. `const char*`) by +value. + +When comparing a pointer to `NULL`, use `EXPECT_NE(`*`ptr`*`, nullptr)` instead +of `EXPECT_NE(`*`ptr`*`, NULL)`. + +### EXPECT_LT {#EXPECT_LT} + +`EXPECT_LT(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_LT(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`<`*`val2`*. + +### EXPECT_LE {#EXPECT_LE} + +`EXPECT_LE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_LE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`<=`*`val2`*. + +### EXPECT_GT {#EXPECT_GT} + +`EXPECT_GT(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_GT(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`>`*`val2`*. + +### EXPECT_GE {#EXPECT_GE} + +`EXPECT_GE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_GE(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that *`val1`*`>=`*`val2`*. + +## String Comparison {#c-strings} + +The following assertions compare two **C strings**. To compare two `string` +objects, use [`EXPECT_EQ`](#EXPECT_EQ) or [`EXPECT_NE`](#EXPECT_NE) instead. + +These assertions also accept wide C strings (`wchar_t*`). If a comparison of two +wide strings fails, their values will be printed as UTF-8 narrow strings. + +To compare a C string with `NULL`, use `EXPECT_EQ(`*`c_string`*`, nullptr)` or +`EXPECT_NE(`*`c_string`*`, nullptr)`. + +### EXPECT_STREQ {#EXPECT_STREQ} + +`EXPECT_STREQ(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_STREQ(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two C strings *`str1`* and *`str2`* have the same contents. + +### EXPECT_STRNE {#EXPECT_STRNE} + +`EXPECT_STRNE(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_STRNE(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two C strings *`str1`* and *`str2`* have different contents. + +### EXPECT_STRCASEEQ {#EXPECT_STRCASEEQ} + +`EXPECT_STRCASEEQ(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_STRCASEEQ(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two C strings *`str1`* and *`str2`* have the same contents, +ignoring case. + +### EXPECT_STRCASENE {#EXPECT_STRCASENE} + +`EXPECT_STRCASENE(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_STRCASENE(`*`str1`*`,`*`str2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two C strings *`str1`* and *`str2`* have different contents, +ignoring case. + +## Floating-Point Comparison {#floating-point} + +The following assertions compare two floating-point values. + +Due to rounding errors, it is very unlikely that two floating-point values will +match exactly, so `EXPECT_EQ` is not suitable. In general, for floating-point +comparison to make sense, the user needs to carefully choose the error bound. + +GoogleTest also provides assertions that use a default error bound based on +Units in the Last Place (ULPs). To learn more about ULPs, see the article +[Comparing Floating Point Numbers](https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/comparing-floating-point-numbers-2012-edition/). + +### EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ {#EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ} + +`EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_FLOAT_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two `float` values *`val1`* and *`val2`* are approximately +equal, to within 4 ULPs from each other. + +### EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ {#EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ} + +`EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_DOUBLE_EQ(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` + +Verifies that the two `double` values *`val1`* and *`val2`* are approximately +equal, to within 4 ULPs from each other. + +### EXPECT_NEAR {#EXPECT_NEAR} + +`EXPECT_NEAR(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`abs_error`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_NEAR(`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`abs_error`*`)` + +Verifies that the difference between *`val1`* and *`val2`* does not exceed the +absolute error bound *`abs_error`*. + +## Exception Assertions {#exceptions} + +The following assertions verify that a piece of code throws, or does not throw, +an exception. Usage requires exceptions to be enabled in the build environment. + +Note that the piece of code under test can be a compound statement, for example: + +```cpp +EXPECT_NO_THROW({ + int n = 5; + DoSomething(&n); +}); +``` + +### EXPECT_THROW {#EXPECT_THROW} + +`EXPECT_THROW(`*`statement`*`,`*`exception_type`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_THROW(`*`statement`*`,`*`exception_type`*`)` + +Verifies that *`statement`* throws an exception of type *`exception_type`*. + +### EXPECT_ANY_THROW {#EXPECT_ANY_THROW} + +`EXPECT_ANY_THROW(`*`statement`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_ANY_THROW(`*`statement`*`)` + +Verifies that *`statement`* throws an exception of any type. + +### EXPECT_NO_THROW {#EXPECT_NO_THROW} + +`EXPECT_NO_THROW(`*`statement`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_NO_THROW(`*`statement`*`)` + +Verifies that *`statement`* does not throw any exception. + +## Predicate Assertions {#predicates} + +The following assertions enable more complex predicates to be verified while +printing a more clear failure message than if `EXPECT_TRUE` were used alone. + +### EXPECT_PRED* {#EXPECT_PRED} + +`EXPECT_PRED1(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED2(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED3(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED4(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED5(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`,`*`val5`*`)` + +`ASSERT_PRED1(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED2(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED3(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED4(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED5(`*`pred`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`,`*`val5`*`)` + +Verifies that the predicate *`pred`* returns `true` when passed the given values +as arguments. + +The parameter *`pred`* is a function or functor that accepts as many arguments +as the corresponding macro accepts values. If *`pred`* returns `true` for the +given arguments, the assertion succeeds, otherwise the assertion fails. + +When the assertion fails, it prints the value of each argument. Arguments are +always evaluated exactly once. + +As an example, see the following code: + +```cpp +// Returns true if m and n have no common divisors except 1. +bool MutuallyPrime(int m, int n) { ... } +... +const int a = 3; +const int b = 4; +const int c = 10; +... +EXPECT_PRED2(MutuallyPrime, a, b); // Succeeds +EXPECT_PRED2(MutuallyPrime, b, c); // Fails +``` + +In the above example, the first assertion succeeds, and the second fails with +the following message: + +``` +MutuallyPrime(b, c) is false, where +b is 4 +c is 10 +``` + +Note that if the given predicate is an overloaded function or a function +template, the assertion macro might not be able to determine which version to +use, and it might be necessary to explicitly specify the type of the function. +For example, for a Boolean function `IsPositive()` overloaded to take either a +single `int` or `double` argument, it would be necessary to write one of the +following: + +```cpp +EXPECT_PRED1(static_cast(IsPositive), 5); +EXPECT_PRED1(static_cast(IsPositive), 3.14); +``` + +Writing simply `EXPECT_PRED1(IsPositive, 5);` would result in a compiler error. +Similarly, to use a template function, specify the template arguments: + +```cpp +template +bool IsNegative(T x) { + return x < 0; +} +... +EXPECT_PRED1(IsNegative, -5); // Must specify type for IsNegative +``` + +If a template has multiple parameters, wrap the predicate in parentheses so the +macro arguments are parsed correctly: + +```cpp +ASSERT_PRED2((MyPredicate), 5, 0); +``` + +### EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT* {#EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT} + +`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT1(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT3(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT4(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`)` +\ +`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT5(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`,`*`val5`*`)` + +`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT1(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT2(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT3(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT4(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`)` +\ +`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT5(`*`pred_formatter`*`,`*`val1`*`,`*`val2`*`,`*`val3`*`,`*`val4`*`,`*`val5`*`)` + +Verifies that the predicate *`pred_formatter`* succeeds when passed the given +values as arguments. + +The parameter *`pred_formatter`* is a *predicate-formatter*, which is a function +or functor with the signature: + +```cpp +testing::AssertionResult PredicateFormatter(const char* expr1, + const char* expr2, + ... + const char* exprn, + T1 val1, + T2 val2, + ... + Tn valn); +``` + +where *`val1`*, *`val2`*, ..., *`valn`* are the values of the predicate +arguments, and *`expr1`*, *`expr2`*, ..., *`exprn`* are the corresponding +expressions as they appear in the source code. The types `T1`, `T2`, ..., `Tn` +can be either value types or reference types; if an argument has type `T`, it +can be declared as either `T` or `const T&`, whichever is appropriate. For more +about the return type `testing::AssertionResult`, see +[Using a Function That Returns an AssertionResult](../advanced.md#using-a-function-that-returns-an-assertionresult). + +As an example, see the following code: + +```cpp +// Returns the smallest prime common divisor of m and n, +// or 1 when m and n are mutually prime. +int SmallestPrimeCommonDivisor(int m, int n) { ... } + +// Returns true if m and n have no common divisors except 1. +bool MutuallyPrime(int m, int n) { ... } + +// A predicate-formatter for asserting that two integers are mutually prime. +testing::AssertionResult AssertMutuallyPrime(const char* m_expr, + const char* n_expr, + int m, + int n) { + if (MutuallyPrime(m, n)) return testing::AssertionSuccess(); + + return testing::AssertionFailure() << m_expr << " and " << n_expr + << " (" << m << " and " << n << ") are not mutually prime, " + << "as they have a common divisor " << SmallestPrimeCommonDivisor(m, n); +} + +... +const int a = 3; +const int b = 4; +const int c = 10; +... +EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(AssertMutuallyPrime, a, b); // Succeeds +EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(AssertMutuallyPrime, b, c); // Fails +``` + +In the above example, the final assertion fails and the predicate-formatter +produces the following failure message: + +``` +b and c (4 and 10) are not mutually prime, as they have a common divisor 2 +``` + +## Windows HRESULT Assertions {#HRESULT} + +The following assertions test for `HRESULT` success or failure. For example: + +```cpp +CComPtr shell; +ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(shell.CoCreateInstance(L"Shell.Application")); +CComVariant empty; +ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(shell->ShellExecute(CComBSTR(url), empty, empty, empty, empty)); +``` + +The generated output contains the human-readable error message associated with +the returned `HRESULT` code. + +### EXPECT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED {#EXPECT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED} + +`EXPECT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(`*`expression`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(`*`expression`*`)` + +Verifies that *`expression`* is a success `HRESULT`. + +### EXPECT_HRESULT_FAILED {#EXPECT_HRESULT_FAILED} + +`EXPECT_HRESULT_FAILED(`*`expression`*`)` \ +`EXPECT_HRESULT_FAILED(`*`expression`*`)` + +Verifies that *`expression`* is a failure `HRESULT`. + +## Death Assertions {#death} + +The following assertions verify that a piece of code causes the process to +terminate. For context, see [Death Tests](../advanced.md#death-tests). + +These assertions spawn a new process and execute the code under test in that +process. How that happens depends on the platform and the variable +`::testing::GTEST_FLAG(death_test_style)`, which is initialized from the +command-line flag `--gtest_death_test_style`. + +* On POSIX systems, `fork()` (or `clone()` on Linux) is used to spawn the + child, after which: + * If the variable's value is `"fast"`, the death test statement is + immediately executed. + * If the variable's value is `"threadsafe"`, the child process re-executes + the unit test binary just as it was originally invoked, but with some + extra flags to cause just the single death test under consideration to + be run. +* On Windows, the child is spawned using the `CreateProcess()` API, and + re-executes the binary to cause just the single death test under + consideration to be run - much like the `"threadsafe"` mode on POSIX. + +Other values for the variable are illegal and will cause the death test to fail. +Currently, the flag's default value is +**`"fast"`**. + +If the death test statement runs to completion without dying, the child process +will nonetheless terminate, and the assertion fails. + +Note that the piece of code under test can be a compound statement, for example: + +```cpp +EXPECT_DEATH({ + int n = 5; + DoSomething(&n); +}, "Error on line .* of DoSomething()"); +``` + +### EXPECT_DEATH {#EXPECT_DEATH} + +`EXPECT_DEATH(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_DEATH(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` + +Verifies that *`statement`* causes the process to terminate with a nonzero exit +status and produces `stderr` output that matches *`matcher`*. + +The parameter *`matcher`* is either a [matcher](matchers.md) for a `const +std::string&`, or a regular expression (see +[Regular Expression Syntax](../advanced.md#regular-expression-syntax))—a bare +string *`s`* (with no matcher) is treated as +[`ContainsRegex(s)`](matchers.md#string-matchers), **not** +[`Eq(s)`](matchers.md#generic-comparison). + +For example, the following code verifies that calling `DoSomething(42)` causes +the process to die with an error message that contains the text `My error`: + +```cpp +EXPECT_DEATH(DoSomething(42), "My error"); +``` + +### EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED {#EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED} + +`EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` + +If death tests are supported, behaves the same as +[`EXPECT_DEATH`](#EXPECT_DEATH). Otherwise, verifies nothing. + +### EXPECT_DEBUG_DEATH {#EXPECT_DEBUG_DEATH} + +`EXPECT_DEBUG_DEATH(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_DEBUG_DEATH(`*`statement`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` + +In debug mode, behaves the same as [`EXPECT_DEATH`](#EXPECT_DEATH). When not in +debug mode (i.e. `NDEBUG` is defined), just executes *`statement`*. + +### EXPECT_EXIT {#EXPECT_EXIT} + +`EXPECT_EXIT(`*`statement`*`,`*`predicate`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` \ +`ASSERT_EXIT(`*`statement`*`,`*`predicate`*`,`*`matcher`*`)` + +Verifies that *`statement`* causes the process to terminate with an exit status +that satisfies *`predicate`*, and produces `stderr` output that matches +*`matcher`*. + +The parameter *`predicate`* is a function or functor that accepts an `int` exit +status and returns a `bool`. GoogleTest provides two predicates to handle common +cases: + +```cpp +// Returns true if the program exited normally with the given exit status code. +::testing::ExitedWithCode(exit_code); + +// Returns true if the program was killed by the given signal. +// Not available on Windows. +::testing::KilledBySignal(signal_number); +``` + +The parameter *`matcher`* is either a [matcher](matchers.md) for a `const +std::string&`, or a regular expression (see +[Regular Expression Syntax](../advanced.md#regular-expression-syntax))—a bare +string *`s`* (with no matcher) is treated as +[`ContainsRegex(s)`](matchers.md#string-matchers), **not** +[`Eq(s)`](matchers.md#generic-comparison). + +For example, the following code verifies that calling `NormalExit()` causes the +process to print a message containing the text `Success` to `stderr` and exit +with exit status code 0: + +```cpp +EXPECT_EXIT(NormalExit(), testing::ExitedWithCode(0), "Success"); +``` diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/matchers.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/matchers.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9e40cab --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/matchers.md @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ +# Matchers Reference + +A **matcher** matches a *single* argument. You can use it inside `ON_CALL()` or +`EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value directly using two macros: + +| Macro | Description | +| :----------------------------------- | :------------------------------------ | +| `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)` | Asserts that `actual_value` matches `matcher`. | +| `ASSERT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. | + +{: .callout .note} +**Note:** Although equality matching via `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, +expected_value)` is supported, prefer to make the comparison explicit via +`EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, Eq(expected_value))` or `EXPECT_EQ(actual_value, +expected_value)`. + +Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument, e.g. +`actual_value` in the example above, or when used in the context of +`EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))`, the arguments of `method`) are +divided into several categories. All matchers are defined in the `::testing` +namespace unless otherwise noted. + +## Wildcard + +Matcher | Description +:-------------------------- | :----------------------------------------------- +`_` | `argument` can be any value of the correct type. +`A()` or `An()` | `argument` can be any value of type `type`. + +## Generic Comparison + +| Matcher | Description | +| :--------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------- | +| `Eq(value)` or `value` | `argument == value` | +| `Ge(value)` | `argument >= value` | +| `Gt(value)` | `argument > value` | +| `Le(value)` | `argument <= value` | +| `Lt(value)` | `argument < value` | +| `Ne(value)` | `argument != value` | +| `IsFalse()` | `argument` evaluates to `false` in a Boolean context. | +| `IsTrue()` | `argument` evaluates to `true` in a Boolean context. | +| `IsNull()` | `argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart). | +| `NotNull()` | `argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart). | +| `Optional(m)` | `argument` is `optional<>` that contains a value matching `m`. (For testing whether an `optional<>` is set, check for equality with `nullopt`. You may need to use `Eq(nullopt)` if the inner type doesn't have `==`.)| +| `VariantWith(m)` | `argument` is `variant<>` that holds the alternative of type T with a value matching `m`. | +| `Ref(variable)` | `argument` is a reference to `variable`. | +| `TypedEq(value)` | `argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded. | + +Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a *copy* of `value` in case it's modified or +destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` doesn't have a public +copy constructor, try wrap it in `std::ref()`, e.g. +`Eq(std::ref(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure +`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your matcher +will be changed. + +`IsTrue` and `IsFalse` are useful when you need to use a matcher, or for types +that can be explicitly converted to Boolean, but are not implicitly converted to +Boolean. In other cases, you can use the basic +[`EXPECT_TRUE` and `EXPECT_FALSE`](assertions.md#boolean) assertions. + +## Floating-Point Matchers {#FpMatchers} + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------------- | :--------------------------------- | +| `DoubleEq(a_double)` | `argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | +| `FloatEq(a_float)` | `argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | +| `NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)` | `argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. | +| `NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)` | `argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. | +| `IsNan()` | `argument` is any floating-point type with a NaN value. | + +The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in googletest). +They automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute value of +the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to the IEEE standard, +which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to return false. The +`NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as equal, which is often what a +user wants. + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------- | +| `DoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. | +| `FloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. | +| `NanSensitiveDoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | +| `NanSensitiveFloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | + +## String Matchers + +The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object: + +| Matcher | Description | +| :---------------------- | :------------------------------------------------- | +| `ContainsRegex(string)` | `argument` matches the given regular expression. | +| `EndsWith(suffix)` | `argument` ends with string `suffix`. | +| `HasSubstr(string)` | `argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. | +| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty string. | +| `MatchesRegex(string)` | `argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character. | +| `StartsWith(prefix)` | `argument` starts with string `prefix`. | +| `StrCaseEq(string)` | `argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. | +| `StrCaseNe(string)` | `argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case. | +| `StrEq(string)` | `argument` is equal to `string`. | +| `StrNe(string)` | `argument` is not equal to `string`. | + +`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` take ownership of the `RE` object. They +use the regular expression syntax defined +[here](../advanced.md#regular-expression-syntax). All of these matchers, except +`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` work for wide strings as well. + +## Container Matchers + +Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use `Eq(expected_container)` +or simply `expected_container` to match a container exactly. If you want to +write the elements in-line, match them more flexibly, or get more informative +messages, you can use: + +| Matcher | Description | +| :---------------------------------------- | :------------------------------- | +| `BeginEndDistanceIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose `begin()` and `end()` iterators are separated by a number of increments matching `m`. E.g. `BeginEndDistanceIs(2)` or `BeginEndDistanceIs(Lt(2))`. For containers that define a `size()` method, `SizeIs(m)` may be more efficient. | +| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. | +| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | +| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where *every* element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | +| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the *i*-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. | +| `ElementsAreArray({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `ElementsAreArray(a_container)`, `ElementsAreArray(begin, end)`, `ElementsAreArray(array)`, or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. | +| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty container (`container.empty()`). | +| `IsSubsetOf({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `IsSubsetOf(a_container)`, `IsSubsetOf(begin, end)`, `IsSubsetOf(array)`, or `IsSubsetOf(array, count)` | `argument` matches `UnorderedElementsAre(x0, x1, ..., xk)` for some subset `{x0, x1, ..., xk}` of the expected matchers. | +| `IsSupersetOf({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `IsSupersetOf(a_container)`, `IsSupersetOf(begin, end)`, `IsSupersetOf(array)`, or `IsSupersetOf(array, count)` | Some subset of `argument` matches `UnorderedElementsAre(`expected matchers`)`. | +| `Pointwise(m, container)`, `Pointwise(m, {e0, e1, ..., en})` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. See more detail below. | +| `SizeIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose size matches `m`. E.g. `SizeIs(2)` or `SizeIs(Lt(2))`. | +| `UnorderedElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, and under *some* permutation of the elements, each element matches an `ei` (for a different `i`), which can be a value or a matcher. | +| `UnorderedElementsAreArray({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(a_container)`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(begin, end)`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array)`, or `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `UnorderedElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. | +| `UnorderedPointwise(m, container)`, `UnorderedPointwise(m, {e0, e1, ..., en})` | Like `Pointwise(m, container)`, but ignores the order of elements. | +| `WhenSorted(m)` | When `argument` is sorted using the `<` operator, it matches container matcher `m`. E.g. `WhenSorted(ElementsAre(1, 2, 3))` verifies that `argument` contains elements 1, 2, and 3, ignoring order. | +| `WhenSortedBy(comparator, m)` | The same as `WhenSorted(m)`, except that the given comparator instead of `<` is used to sort `argument`. E.g. `WhenSortedBy(std::greater(), ElementsAre(3, 2, 1))`. | + +**Notes:** + +* These matchers can also match: + 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), + and + 2. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, + int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#MultiArgMatchers)). +* The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be + arrays). +* `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` and `UnorderedPointwise(m, ...)` should be a + matcher for `::std::tuple` where `T` and `U` are the element type of + the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example, + to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==`, + one might write: + + ```cpp + using ::std::get; + MATCHER(FooEq, "") { + return std::get<0>(arg).Equals(std::get<1>(arg)); + } + ... + EXPECT_THAT(actual_foos, Pointwise(FooEq(), expected_foos)); + ``` + +## Member Matchers + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------- | +| `Field(&class::field, m)` | `argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_. | +| `Field(field_name, &class::field, m)` | The same as the two-parameter version, but provides a better error message. | +| `Key(e)` | `argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`. | +| `Pair(m1, m2)` | `argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. | +| `FieldsAre(m...)` | `argument` is a compatible object where each field matches piecewise with the matchers `m...`. A compatible object is any that supports the `std::tuple_size`+`get(obj)` protocol. In C++17 and up this also supports types compatible with structured bindings, like aggregates. | +| `Property(&class::property, m)` | `argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_. The method `property()` must take no argument and be declared as `const`. | +| `Property(property_name, &class::property, m)` | The same as the two-parameter version, but provides a better error message. + +**Notes:** + +* You can use `FieldsAre()` to match any type that supports structured + bindings, such as `std::tuple`, `std::pair`, `std::array`, and aggregate + types. For example: + + ```cpp + std::tuple my_tuple{7, "hello world"}; + EXPECT_THAT(my_tuple, FieldsAre(Ge(0), HasSubstr("hello"))); + + struct MyStruct { + int value = 42; + std::string greeting = "aloha"; + }; + MyStruct s; + EXPECT_THAT(s, FieldsAre(42, "aloha")); + ``` + +* Don't use `Property()` against member functions that you do not own, because + taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally not part of the + contract of the function. + +## Matching the Result of a Function, Functor, or Callback + +| Matcher | Description | +| :--------------- | :------------------------------------------------ | +| `ResultOf(f, m)` | `f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor. | + +## Pointer Matchers + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------ | :---------------------------------------------- | +| `Address(m)` | the result of `std::addressof(argument)` matches `m`. | +| `Pointee(m)` | `argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`. | +| `Pointer(m)` | `argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) contains a pointer that matches `m`. `m` will match against the raw pointer regardless of the type of `argument`. | +| `WhenDynamicCastTo(m)` | when `argument` is passed through `dynamic_cast()`, it matches matcher `m`. | + +## Multi-argument Matchers {#MultiArgMatchers} + +Technically, all matchers match a *single* value. A "multi-argument" matcher is +just one that matches a *tuple*. The following matchers can be used to match a +tuple `(x, y)`: + +Matcher | Description +:------ | :---------- +`Eq()` | `x == y` +`Ge()` | `x >= y` +`Gt()` | `x > y` +`Le()` | `x <= y` +`Lt()` | `x < y` +`Ne()` | `x != y` + +You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments (or +reorder them) to participate in the matching: + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------- | +| `AllArgs(m)` | Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`. | +| `Args(m)` | The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`. | + +## Composite Matchers + +You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers: + +| Matcher | Description | +| :------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- | +| `AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)` | `argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`. | +| `AllOfArray({m0, m1, ..., mn})`, `AllOfArray(a_container)`, `AllOfArray(begin, end)`, `AllOfArray(array)`, or `AllOfArray(array, count)` | The same as `AllOf()` except that the matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. | +| `AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)` | `argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`. | +| `AnyOfArray({m0, m1, ..., mn})`, `AnyOfArray(a_container)`, `AnyOfArray(begin, end)`, `AnyOfArray(array)`, or `AnyOfArray(array, count)` | The same as `AnyOf()` except that the matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. | +| `Not(m)` | `argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. | + +## Adapters for Matchers + +| Matcher | Description | +| :---------------------- | :------------------------------------ | +| `MatcherCast(m)` | casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | +| `SafeMatcherCast(m)` | [safely casts](../gmock_cook_book.md#SafeMatcherCast) matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | +| `Truly(predicate)` | `predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor. | + +`AddressSatisfies(callback)` and `Truly(callback)` take ownership of `callback`, +which must be a permanent callback. + +## Using Matchers as Predicates {#MatchersAsPredicatesCheat} + +| Matcher | Description | +| :---------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ | +| `Matches(m)(value)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor. | +| `ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. | +| `Value(value, m)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. | + +## Defining Matchers + +| Matcher | Description | +| :----------------------------------- | :------------------------------------ | +| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. | +| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. | +| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " between ", PrintToString(a), " and ", PrintToString(b))) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. | + +**Notes:** + +1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. +2. The matcher body must be *purely functional* (i.e. it cannot have any side + effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value + being matched and the matcher parameters). +3. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a + string. +4. You can use `ExplainMatchResult()` in a custom matcher to wrap another + matcher, for example: + + ```cpp + MATCHER_P(NestedPropertyMatches, matcher, "") { + return ExplainMatchResult(matcher, arg.nested().property(), result_listener); + } + ``` diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/mocking.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/mocking.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c29f716 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/mocking.md @@ -0,0 +1,587 @@ +# Mocking Reference + +This page lists the facilities provided by GoogleTest for creating and working +with mock objects. To use them, include the header +`gmock/gmock.h`. + +## Macros {#macros} + +GoogleTest defines the following macros for working with mocks. + +### MOCK_METHOD {#MOCK_METHOD} + +`MOCK_METHOD(`*`return_type`*`,`*`method_name`*`, (`*`args...`*`));` \ +`MOCK_METHOD(`*`return_type`*`,`*`method_name`*`, (`*`args...`*`), +(`*`specs...`*`));` + +Defines a mock method *`method_name`* with arguments `(`*`args...`*`)` and +return type *`return_type`* within a mock class. + +The parameters of `MOCK_METHOD` mirror the method declaration. The optional +fourth parameter *`specs...`* is a comma-separated list of qualifiers. The +following qualifiers are accepted: + +| Qualifier | Meaning | +| -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | +| `const` | Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if overriding a `const` method. | +| `override` | Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding a `virtual` method. | +| `noexcept` | Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a `noexcept` method. | +| `Calltype(`*`calltype`*`)` | Sets the call type for the method, for example `Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)`. Useful on Windows. | +| `ref(`*`qualifier`*`)` | Marks the method with the given reference qualifier, for example `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`. Required if overriding a method that has a reference qualifier. | + +Note that commas in arguments prevent `MOCK_METHOD` from parsing the arguments +correctly if they are not appropriately surrounded by parentheses. See the +following example: + +```cpp +class MyMock { + public: + // The following 2 lines will not compile due to commas in the arguments: + MOCK_METHOD(std::pair, GetPair, ()); // Error! + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map, bool)); // Error! + + // One solution - wrap arguments that contain commas in parentheses: + MOCK_METHOD((std::pair), GetPair, ()); + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map), bool)); + + // Another solution - use type aliases: + using BoolAndInt = std::pair; + MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ()); + using MapIntDouble = std::map; + MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool)); +}; +``` + +`MOCK_METHOD` must be used in the `public:` section of a mock class definition, +regardless of whether the method being mocked is `public`, `protected`, or +`private` in the base class. + +### EXPECT_CALL {#EXPECT_CALL} + +`EXPECT_CALL(`*`mock_object`*`,`*`method_name`*`(`*`matchers...`*`))` + +Creates an [expectation](../gmock_for_dummies.md#setting-expectations) that the +method *`method_name`* of the object *`mock_object`* is called with arguments +that match the given matchers *`matchers...`*. `EXPECT_CALL` must precede any +code that exercises the mock object. + +The parameter *`matchers...`* is a comma-separated list of +[matchers](../gmock_for_dummies.md#matchers-what-arguments-do-we-expect) that +correspond to each argument of the method *`method_name`*. The expectation will +apply only to calls of *`method_name`* whose arguments match all of the +matchers. If `(`*`matchers...`*`)` is omitted, the expectation behaves as if +each argument's matcher were a [wildcard matcher (`_`)](matchers.md#wildcard). +See the [Matchers Reference](matchers.md) for a list of all built-in matchers. + +The following chainable clauses can be used to modify the expectation, and they +must be used in the following order: + +```cpp +EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method_name(matchers...)) + .With(multi_argument_matcher) // Can be used at most once + .Times(cardinality) // Can be used at most once + .InSequence(sequences...) // Can be used any number of times + .After(expectations...) // Can be used any number of times + .WillOnce(action) // Can be used any number of times + .WillRepeatedly(action) // Can be used at most once + .RetiresOnSaturation(); // Can be used at most once +``` + +See details for each modifier clause below. + +#### With {#EXPECT_CALL.With} + +`.With(`*`multi_argument_matcher`*`)` + +Restricts the expectation to apply only to mock function calls whose arguments +as a whole match the multi-argument matcher *`multi_argument_matcher`*. + +GoogleTest passes all of the arguments as one tuple into the matcher. The +parameter *`multi_argument_matcher`* must thus be a matcher of type +`Matcher>`, where `A1, ..., An` are the types of the +function arguments. + +For example, the following code sets the expectation that +`my_mock.SetPosition()` is called with any two arguments, the first argument +being less than the second: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Lt; +... +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, SetPosition(_, _)) + .With(Lt()); +``` + +GoogleTest provides some built-in matchers for 2-tuples, including the `Lt()` +matcher above. See [Multi-argument Matchers](matchers.md#MultiArgMatchers). + +The `With` clause can be used at most once on an expectation and must be the +first clause. + +#### Times {#EXPECT_CALL.Times} + +`.Times(`*`cardinality`*`)` + +Specifies how many times the mock function call is expected. + +The parameter *`cardinality`* represents the number of expected calls and can be +one of the following, all defined in the `::testing` namespace: + +| Cardinality | Meaning | +| ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | +| `AnyNumber()` | The function can be called any number of times. | +| `AtLeast(n)` | The function call is expected at least *n* times. | +| `AtMost(n)` | The function call is expected at most *n* times. | +| `Between(m, n)` | The function call is expected between *m* and *n* times, inclusive. | +| `Exactly(n)` or `n` | The function call is expected exactly *n* times. If *n* is 0, the call should never happen. | + +If the `Times` clause is omitted, GoogleTest infers the cardinality as follows: + +* If neither [`WillOnce`](#EXPECT_CALL.WillOnce) nor + [`WillRepeatedly`](#EXPECT_CALL.WillRepeatedly) are specified, the inferred + cardinality is `Times(1)`. +* If there are *n* `WillOnce` clauses and no `WillRepeatedly` clause, where + *n* >= 1, the inferred cardinality is `Times(n)`. +* If there are *n* `WillOnce` clauses and one `WillRepeatedly` clause, where + *n* >= 0, the inferred cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. + +The `Times` clause can be used at most once on an expectation. + +#### InSequence {#EXPECT_CALL.InSequence} + +`.InSequence(`*`sequences...`*`)` + +Specifies that the mock function call is expected in a certain sequence. + +The parameter *`sequences...`* is any number of [`Sequence`](#Sequence) objects. +Expected calls assigned to the same sequence are expected to occur in the order +the expectations are declared. + +For example, the following code sets the expectation that the `Reset()` method +of `my_mock` is called before both `GetSize()` and `Describe()`, and `GetSize()` +and `Describe()` can occur in any order relative to each other: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Sequence; +Sequence s1, s2; +... +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Reset()) + .InSequence(s1, s2); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetSize()) + .InSequence(s1); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Describe()) + .InSequence(s2); +``` + +The `InSequence` clause can be used any number of times on an expectation. + +See also the [`InSequence` class](#InSequence). + +#### After {#EXPECT_CALL.After} + +`.After(`*`expectations...`*`)` + +Specifies that the mock function call is expected to occur after one or more +other calls. + +The parameter *`expectations...`* can be up to five +[`Expectation`](#Expectation) or [`ExpectationSet`](#ExpectationSet) objects. +The mock function call is expected to occur after all of the given expectations. + +For example, the following code sets the expectation that the `Describe()` +method of `my_mock` is called only after both `InitX()` and `InitY()` have been +called. + +```cpp +using ::testing::Expectation; +... +Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, InitX()); +Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, InitY()); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Describe()) + .After(init_x, init_y); +``` + +The `ExpectationSet` object is helpful when the number of prerequisites for an +expectation is large or variable, for example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::ExpectationSet; +... +ExpectationSet all_inits; +// Collect all expectations of InitElement() calls +for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) { + all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, InitElement(i)); +} +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Describe()) + .After(all_inits); // Expect Describe() call after all InitElement() calls +``` + +The `After` clause can be used any number of times on an expectation. + +#### WillOnce {#EXPECT_CALL.WillOnce} + +`.WillOnce(`*`action`*`)` + +Specifies the mock function's actual behavior when invoked, for a single +matching function call. + +The parameter *`action`* represents the +[action](../gmock_for_dummies.md#actions-what-should-it-do) that the function +call will perform. See the [Actions Reference](actions.md) for a list of +built-in actions. + +The use of `WillOnce` implicitly sets a cardinality on the expectation when +`Times` is not specified. See [`Times`](#EXPECT_CALL.Times). + +Each matching function call will perform the next action in the order declared. +For example, the following code specifies that `my_mock.GetNumber()` is expected +to be called exactly 3 times and will return `1`, `2`, and `3` respectively on +the first, second, and third calls: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetNumber()) + .WillOnce(Return(1)) + .WillOnce(Return(2)) + .WillOnce(Return(3)); +``` + +The `WillOnce` clause can be used any number of times on an expectation. + +#### WillRepeatedly {#EXPECT_CALL.WillRepeatedly} + +`.WillRepeatedly(`*`action`*`)` + +Specifies the mock function's actual behavior when invoked, for all subsequent +matching function calls. Takes effect after the actions specified in the +[`WillOnce`](#EXPECT_CALL.WillOnce) clauses, if any, have been performed. + +The parameter *`action`* represents the +[action](../gmock_for_dummies.md#actions-what-should-it-do) that the function +call will perform. See the [Actions Reference](actions.md) for a list of +built-in actions. + +The use of `WillRepeatedly` implicitly sets a cardinality on the expectation +when `Times` is not specified. See [`Times`](#EXPECT_CALL.Times). + +If any `WillOnce` clauses have been specified, matching function calls will +perform those actions before the action specified by `WillRepeatedly`. See the +following example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetName()) + .WillRepeatedly(Return("John Doe")); // Return "John Doe" on all calls + +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetNumber()) + .WillOnce(Return(42)) // Return 42 on the first call + .WillRepeatedly(Return(7)); // Return 7 on all subsequent calls +``` + +The `WillRepeatedly` clause can be used at most once on an expectation. + +#### RetiresOnSaturation {#EXPECT_CALL.RetiresOnSaturation} + +`.RetiresOnSaturation()` + +Indicates that the expectation will no longer be active after the expected +number of matching function calls has been reached. + +The `RetiresOnSaturation` clause is only meaningful for expectations with an +upper-bounded cardinality. The expectation will *retire* (no longer match any +function calls) after it has been *saturated* (the upper bound has been +reached). See the following example: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::AnyNumber; +... +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, SetNumber(_)) // Expectation 1 + .Times(AnyNumber()); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, SetNumber(7)) // Expectation 2 + .Times(2) + .RetiresOnSaturation(); +``` + +In the above example, the first two calls to `my_mock.SetNumber(7)` match +expectation 2, which then becomes inactive and no longer matches any calls. A +third call to `my_mock.SetNumber(7)` would then match expectation 1. Without +`RetiresOnSaturation()` on expectation 2, a third call to `my_mock.SetNumber(7)` +would match expectation 2 again, producing a failure since the limit of 2 calls +was exceeded. + +The `RetiresOnSaturation` clause can be used at most once on an expectation and +must be the last clause. + +### ON_CALL {#ON_CALL} + +`ON_CALL(`*`mock_object`*`,`*`method_name`*`(`*`matchers...`*`))` + +Defines what happens when the method *`method_name`* of the object +*`mock_object`* is called with arguments that match the given matchers +*`matchers...`*. Requires a modifier clause to specify the method's behavior. +*Does not* set any expectations that the method will be called. + +The parameter *`matchers...`* is a comma-separated list of +[matchers](../gmock_for_dummies.md#matchers-what-arguments-do-we-expect) that +correspond to each argument of the method *`method_name`*. The `ON_CALL` +specification will apply only to calls of *`method_name`* whose arguments match +all of the matchers. If `(`*`matchers...`*`)` is omitted, the behavior is as if +each argument's matcher were a [wildcard matcher (`_`)](matchers.md#wildcard). +See the [Matchers Reference](matchers.md) for a list of all built-in matchers. + +The following chainable clauses can be used to set the method's behavior, and +they must be used in the following order: + +```cpp +ON_CALL(mock_object, method_name(matchers...)) + .With(multi_argument_matcher) // Can be used at most once + .WillByDefault(action); // Required +``` + +See details for each modifier clause below. + +#### With {#ON_CALL.With} + +`.With(`*`multi_argument_matcher`*`)` + +Restricts the specification to only mock function calls whose arguments as a +whole match the multi-argument matcher *`multi_argument_matcher`*. + +GoogleTest passes all of the arguments as one tuple into the matcher. The +parameter *`multi_argument_matcher`* must thus be a matcher of type +`Matcher>`, where `A1, ..., An` are the types of the +function arguments. + +For example, the following code sets the default behavior when +`my_mock.SetPosition()` is called with any two arguments, the first argument +being less than the second: + +```cpp +using ::testing::_; +using ::testing::Lt; +using ::testing::Return; +... +ON_CALL(my_mock, SetPosition(_, _)) + .With(Lt()) + .WillByDefault(Return(true)); +``` + +GoogleTest provides some built-in matchers for 2-tuples, including the `Lt()` +matcher above. See [Multi-argument Matchers](matchers.md#MultiArgMatchers). + +The `With` clause can be used at most once with each `ON_CALL` statement. + +#### WillByDefault {#ON_CALL.WillByDefault} + +`.WillByDefault(`*`action`*`)` + +Specifies the default behavior of a matching mock function call. + +The parameter *`action`* represents the +[action](../gmock_for_dummies.md#actions-what-should-it-do) that the function +call will perform. See the [Actions Reference](actions.md) for a list of +built-in actions. + +For example, the following code specifies that by default, a call to +`my_mock.Greet()` will return `"hello"`: + +```cpp +using ::testing::Return; +... +ON_CALL(my_mock, Greet()) + .WillByDefault(Return("hello")); +``` + +The action specified by `WillByDefault` is superseded by the actions specified +on a matching `EXPECT_CALL` statement, if any. See the +[`WillOnce`](#EXPECT_CALL.WillOnce) and +[`WillRepeatedly`](#EXPECT_CALL.WillRepeatedly) clauses of `EXPECT_CALL`. + +The `WillByDefault` clause must be used exactly once with each `ON_CALL` +statement. + +## Classes {#classes} + +GoogleTest defines the following classes for working with mocks. + +### DefaultValue {#DefaultValue} + +`::testing::DefaultValue` + +Allows a user to specify the default value for a type `T` that is both copyable +and publicly destructible (i.e. anything that can be used as a function return +type). For mock functions with a return type of `T`, this default value is +returned from function calls that do not specify an action. + +Provides the static methods `Set()`, `SetFactory()`, and `Clear()` to manage the +default value: + +```cpp +// Sets the default value to be returned. T must be copy constructible. +DefaultValue::Set(value); + +// Sets a factory. Will be invoked on demand. T must be move constructible. +T MakeT(); +DefaultValue::SetFactory(&MakeT); + +// Unsets the default value. +DefaultValue::Clear(); +``` + +### NiceMock {#NiceMock} + +`::testing::NiceMock` + +Represents a mock object that suppresses warnings on +[uninteresting calls](../gmock_cook_book.md#uninteresting-vs-unexpected). The +template parameter `T` is any mock class, except for another `NiceMock`, +`NaggyMock`, or `StrictMock`. + +Usage of `NiceMock` is analogous to usage of `T`. `NiceMock` is a subclass +of `T`, so it can be used wherever an object of type `T` is accepted. In +addition, `NiceMock` can be constructed with any arguments that a constructor +of `T` accepts. + +For example, the following code suppresses warnings on the mock `my_mock` of +type `MockClass` if a method other than `DoSomething()` is called: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NiceMock; +... +NiceMock my_mock("some", "args"); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, DoSomething()); +... code that uses my_mock ... +``` + +`NiceMock` only works for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro +directly in the definition of class `T`. If a mock method is defined in a base +class of `T`, a warning might still be generated. + +`NiceMock` might not work correctly if the destructor of `T` is not virtual. + +### NaggyMock {#NaggyMock} + +`::testing::NaggyMock` + +Represents a mock object that generates warnings on +[uninteresting calls](../gmock_cook_book.md#uninteresting-vs-unexpected). The +template parameter `T` is any mock class, except for another `NiceMock`, +`NaggyMock`, or `StrictMock`. + +Usage of `NaggyMock` is analogous to usage of `T`. `NaggyMock` is a +subclass of `T`, so it can be used wherever an object of type `T` is accepted. +In addition, `NaggyMock` can be constructed with any arguments that a +constructor of `T` accepts. + +For example, the following code generates warnings on the mock `my_mock` of type +`MockClass` if a method other than `DoSomething()` is called: + +```cpp +using ::testing::NaggyMock; +... +NaggyMock my_mock("some", "args"); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, DoSomething()); +... code that uses my_mock ... +``` + +Mock objects of type `T` by default behave the same way as `NaggyMock`. + +### StrictMock {#StrictMock} + +`::testing::StrictMock` + +Represents a mock object that generates test failures on +[uninteresting calls](../gmock_cook_book.md#uninteresting-vs-unexpected). The +template parameter `T` is any mock class, except for another `NiceMock`, +`NaggyMock`, or `StrictMock`. + +Usage of `StrictMock` is analogous to usage of `T`. `StrictMock` is a +subclass of `T`, so it can be used wherever an object of type `T` is accepted. +In addition, `StrictMock` can be constructed with any arguments that a +constructor of `T` accepts. + +For example, the following code generates a test failure on the mock `my_mock` +of type `MockClass` if a method other than `DoSomething()` is called: + +```cpp +using ::testing::StrictMock; +... +StrictMock my_mock("some", "args"); +EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, DoSomething()); +... code that uses my_mock ... +``` + +`StrictMock` only works for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` +macro directly in the definition of class `T`. If a mock method is defined in a +base class of `T`, a failure might not be generated. + +`StrictMock` might not work correctly if the destructor of `T` is not +virtual. + +### Sequence {#Sequence} + +`::testing::Sequence` + +Represents a chronological sequence of expectations. See the +[`InSequence`](#EXPECT_CALL.InSequence) clause of `EXPECT_CALL` for usage. + +### InSequence {#InSequence} + +`::testing::InSequence` + +An object of this type causes all expectations encountered in its scope to be +put in an anonymous sequence. + +This allows more convenient expression of multiple expectations in a single +sequence: + +```cpp +using ::testing::InSequence; +{ + InSequence seq; + + // The following are expected to occur in the order declared. + EXPECT_CALL(...); + EXPECT_CALL(...); + ... + EXPECT_CALL(...); +} +``` + +The name of the `InSequence` object does not matter. + +### Expectation {#Expectation} + +`::testing::Expectation` + +Represents a mock function call expectation as created by +[`EXPECT_CALL`](#EXPECT_CALL): + +```cpp +using ::testing::Expectation; +Expectation my_expectation = EXPECT_CALL(...); +``` + +Useful for specifying sequences of expectations; see the +[`After`](#EXPECT_CALL.After) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. + +### ExpectationSet {#ExpectationSet} + +`::testing::ExpectationSet` + +Represents a set of mock function call expectations. + +Use the `+=` operator to add [`Expectation`](#Expectation) objects to the set: + +```cpp +using ::testing::ExpectationSet; +ExpectationSet my_expectations; +my_expectations += EXPECT_CALL(...); +``` + +Useful for specifying sequences of expectations; see the +[`After`](#EXPECT_CALL.After) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/testing.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/testing.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..554d6c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/reference/testing.md @@ -0,0 +1,1431 @@ +# Testing Reference + + + +This page lists the facilities provided by GoogleTest for writing test programs. +To use them, include the header `gtest/gtest.h`. + +## Macros + +GoogleTest defines the following macros for writing tests. + +### TEST {#TEST} + +
+TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName) {
+  ... statements ...
+}
+
+ +Defines an individual test named *`TestName`* in the test suite +*`TestSuiteName`*, consisting of the given statements. + +Both arguments *`TestSuiteName`* and *`TestName`* must be valid C++ identifiers +and must not contain underscores (`_`). Tests in different test suites can have +the same individual name. + +The statements within the test body can be any code under test. +[Assertions](assertions.md) used within the test body determine the outcome of +the test. + +### TEST_F {#TEST_F} + +
+TEST_F(TestFixtureName, TestName) {
+  ... statements ...
+}
+
+ +Defines an individual test named *`TestName`* that uses the test fixture class +*`TestFixtureName`*. The test suite name is *`TestFixtureName`*. + +Both arguments *`TestFixtureName`* and *`TestName`* must be valid C++ +identifiers and must not contain underscores (`_`). *`TestFixtureName`* must be +the name of a test fixture class—see +[Test Fixtures](../primer.md#same-data-multiple-tests). + +The statements within the test body can be any code under test. +[Assertions](assertions.md) used within the test body determine the outcome of +the test. + +### TEST_P {#TEST_P} + +
+TEST_P(TestFixtureName, TestName) {
+  ... statements ...
+}
+
+ +Defines an individual value-parameterized test named *`TestName`* that uses the +test fixture class *`TestFixtureName`*. The test suite name is +*`TestFixtureName`*. + +Both arguments *`TestFixtureName`* and *`TestName`* must be valid C++ +identifiers and must not contain underscores (`_`). *`TestFixtureName`* must be +the name of a value-parameterized test fixture class—see +[Value-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#value-parameterized-tests). + +The statements within the test body can be any code under test. Within the test +body, the test parameter can be accessed with the `GetParam()` function (see +[`WithParamInterface`](#WithParamInterface)). For example: + +```cpp +TEST_P(MyTestSuite, DoesSomething) { + ... + EXPECT_TRUE(DoSomething(GetParam())); + ... +} +``` + +[Assertions](assertions.md) used within the test body determine the outcome of +the test. + +See also [`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P`](#INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P). + +### INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P {#INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P} + +`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(`*`InstantiationName`*`,`*`TestSuiteName`*`,`*`param_generator`*`)` +\ +`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(`*`InstantiationName`*`,`*`TestSuiteName`*`,`*`param_generator`*`,`*`name_generator`*`)` + +Instantiates the value-parameterized test suite *`TestSuiteName`* (defined with +[`TEST_P`](#TEST_P)). + +The argument *`InstantiationName`* is a unique name for the instantiation of the +test suite, to distinguish between multiple instantiations. In test output, the +instantiation name is added as a prefix to the test suite name +*`TestSuiteName`*. + +The argument *`param_generator`* is one of the following GoogleTest-provided +functions that generate the test parameters, all defined in the `::testing` +namespace: + + + +| Parameter Generator | Behavior | +| ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | +| `Range(begin, end [, step])` | Yields values `{begin, begin+step, begin+step+step, ...}`. The values do not include `end`. `step` defaults to 1. | +| `Values(v1, v2, ..., vN)` | Yields values `{v1, v2, ..., vN}`. | +| `ValuesIn(container)` or `ValuesIn(begin,end)` | Yields values from a C-style array, an STL-style container, or an iterator range `[begin, end)`. | +| `Bool()` | Yields sequence `{false, true}`. | +| `Combine(g1, g2, ..., gN)` | Yields as `std::tuple` *n*-tuples all combinations (Cartesian product) of the values generated by the given *n* generators `g1`, `g2`, ..., `gN`. | + +The optional last argument *`name_generator`* is a function or functor that +generates custom test name suffixes based on the test parameters. The function +must accept an argument of type +[`TestParamInfo`](#TestParamInfo) and return a `std::string`. +The test name suffix can only contain alphanumeric characters and underscores. +GoogleTest provides [`PrintToStringParamName`](#PrintToStringParamName), or a +custom function can be used for more control: + +```cpp +INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P( + MyInstantiation, MyTestSuite, + ::testing::Values(...), + [](const ::testing::TestParamInfo& info) { + // Can use info.param here to generate the test suffix + std::string name = ... + return name; + }); +``` + +For more information, see +[Value-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#value-parameterized-tests). + +See also +[`GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST`](#GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST). + +### TYPED_TEST_SUITE {#TYPED_TEST_SUITE} + +`TYPED_TEST_SUITE(`*`TestFixtureName`*`,`*`Types`*`)` + +Defines a typed test suite based on the test fixture *`TestFixtureName`*. The +test suite name is *`TestFixtureName`*. + +The argument *`TestFixtureName`* is a fixture class template, parameterized by a +type, for example: + +```cpp +template +class MyFixture : public ::testing::Test { + public: + ... + using List = std::list; + static T shared_; + T value_; +}; +``` + +The argument *`Types`* is a [`Types`](#Types) object representing the list of +types to run the tests on, for example: + +```cpp +using MyTypes = ::testing::Types; +TYPED_TEST_SUITE(MyFixture, MyTypes); +``` + +The type alias (`using` or `typedef`) is necessary for the `TYPED_TEST_SUITE` +macro to parse correctly. + +See also [`TYPED_TEST`](#TYPED_TEST) and +[Typed Tests](../advanced.md#typed-tests) for more information. + +### TYPED_TEST {#TYPED_TEST} + +
+TYPED_TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName) {
+  ... statements ...
+}
+
+ +Defines an individual typed test named *`TestName`* in the typed test suite +*`TestSuiteName`*. The test suite must be defined with +[`TYPED_TEST_SUITE`](#TYPED_TEST_SUITE). + +Within the test body, the special name `TypeParam` refers to the type parameter, +and `TestFixture` refers to the fixture class. See the following example: + +```cpp +TYPED_TEST(MyFixture, Example) { + // Inside a test, refer to the special name TypeParam to get the type + // parameter. Since we are inside a derived class template, C++ requires + // us to visit the members of MyFixture via 'this'. + TypeParam n = this->value_; + + // To visit static members of the fixture, add the 'TestFixture::' + // prefix. + n += TestFixture::shared_; + + // To refer to typedefs in the fixture, add the 'typename TestFixture::' + // prefix. The 'typename' is required to satisfy the compiler. + typename TestFixture::List values; + + values.push_back(n); + ... +} +``` + +For more information, see [Typed Tests](../advanced.md#typed-tests). + +### TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P {#TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P} + +`TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(`*`TestFixtureName`*`)` + +Defines a type-parameterized test suite based on the test fixture +*`TestFixtureName`*. The test suite name is *`TestFixtureName`*. + +The argument *`TestFixtureName`* is a fixture class template, parameterized by a +type. See [`TYPED_TEST_SUITE`](#TYPED_TEST_SUITE) for an example. + +See also [`TYPED_TEST_P`](#TYPED_TEST_P) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests) for more +information. + +### TYPED_TEST_P {#TYPED_TEST_P} + +
+TYPED_TEST_P(TestSuiteName, TestName) {
+  ... statements ...
+}
+
+ +Defines an individual type-parameterized test named *`TestName`* in the +type-parameterized test suite *`TestSuiteName`*. The test suite must be defined +with [`TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P`](#TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P). + +Within the test body, the special name `TypeParam` refers to the type parameter, +and `TestFixture` refers to the fixture class. See [`TYPED_TEST`](#TYPED_TEST) +for an example. + +See also [`REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P`](#REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests) for more +information. + +### REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P {#REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P} + +`REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(`*`TestSuiteName`*`,`*`TestNames...`*`)` + +Registers the type-parameterized tests *`TestNames...`* of the test suite +*`TestSuiteName`*. The test suite and tests must be defined with +[`TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P`](#TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P) and [`TYPED_TEST_P`](#TYPED_TEST_P). + +For example: + +```cpp +// Define the test suite and tests. +TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(MyFixture); +TYPED_TEST_P(MyFixture, HasPropertyA) { ... } +TYPED_TEST_P(MyFixture, HasPropertyB) { ... } + +// Register the tests in the test suite. +REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(MyFixture, HasPropertyA, HasPropertyB); +``` + +See also [`INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P`](#INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests) for more +information. + +### INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P {#INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P} + +`INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(`*`InstantiationName`*`,`*`TestSuiteName`*`,`*`Types`*`)` + +Instantiates the type-parameterized test suite *`TestSuiteName`*. The test suite +must be registered with +[`REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P`](#REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P). + +The argument *`InstantiationName`* is a unique name for the instantiation of the +test suite, to distinguish between multiple instantiations. In test output, the +instantiation name is added as a prefix to the test suite name +*`TestSuiteName`*. + +The argument *`Types`* is a [`Types`](#Types) object representing the list of +types to run the tests on, for example: + +```cpp +using MyTypes = ::testing::Types; +INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(MyInstantiation, MyFixture, MyTypes); +``` + +The type alias (`using` or `typedef`) is necessary for the +`INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P` macro to parse correctly. + +For more information, see +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests). + +### FRIEND_TEST {#FRIEND_TEST} + +`FRIEND_TEST(`*`TestSuiteName`*`,`*`TestName`*`)` + +Within a class body, declares an individual test as a friend of the class, +enabling the test to access private class members. + +If the class is defined in a namespace, then in order to be friends of the +class, test fixtures and tests must be defined in the exact same namespace, +without inline or anonymous namespaces. + +For example, if the class definition looks like the following: + +```cpp +namespace my_namespace { + +class MyClass { + friend class MyClassTest; + FRIEND_TEST(MyClassTest, HasPropertyA); + FRIEND_TEST(MyClassTest, HasPropertyB); + ... definition of class MyClass ... +}; + +} // namespace my_namespace +``` + +Then the test code should look like: + +```cpp +namespace my_namespace { + +class MyClassTest : public ::testing::Test { + ... +}; + +TEST_F(MyClassTest, HasPropertyA) { ... } +TEST_F(MyClassTest, HasPropertyB) { ... } + +} // namespace my_namespace +``` + +See [Testing Private Code](../advanced.md#testing-private-code) for more +information. + +### SCOPED_TRACE {#SCOPED_TRACE} + +`SCOPED_TRACE(`*`message`*`)` + +Causes the current file name, line number, and the given message *`message`* to +be added to the failure message for each assertion failure that occurs in the +scope. + +For more information, see +[Adding Traces to Assertions](../advanced.md#adding-traces-to-assertions). + +See also the [`ScopedTrace` class](#ScopedTrace). + +### GTEST_SKIP {#GTEST_SKIP} + +`GTEST_SKIP()` + +Prevents further test execution at runtime. + +Can be used in individual test cases or in the `SetUp()` methods of test +environments or test fixtures (classes derived from the +[`Environment`](#Environment) or [`Test`](#Test) classes). If used in a global +test environment `SetUp()` method, it skips all tests in the test program. If +used in a test fixture `SetUp()` method, it skips all tests in the corresponding +test suite. + +Similar to assertions, `GTEST_SKIP` allows streaming a custom message into it. + +See [Skipping Test Execution](../advanced.md#skipping-test-execution) for more +information. + +### GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST {#GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST} + +`GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST(`*`TestSuiteName`*`)` + +Allows the value-parameterized test suite *`TestSuiteName`* to be +uninstantiated. + +By default, every [`TEST_P`](#TEST_P) call without a corresponding +[`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P`](#INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P) call causes a failing +test in the test suite `GoogleTestVerification`. +`GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST` suppresses this failure for the +given test suite. + +## Classes and types + +GoogleTest defines the following classes and types to help with writing tests. + +### AssertionResult {#AssertionResult} + +`::testing::AssertionResult` + +A class for indicating whether an assertion was successful. + +When the assertion wasn't successful, the `AssertionResult` object stores a +non-empty failure message that can be retrieved with the object's `message()` +method. + +To create an instance of this class, use one of the factory functions +[`AssertionSuccess()`](#AssertionSuccess) or +[`AssertionFailure()`](#AssertionFailure). + +### AssertionException {#AssertionException} + +`::testing::AssertionException` + +Exception which can be thrown from +[`TestEventListener::OnTestPartResult`](#TestEventListener::OnTestPartResult). + +### EmptyTestEventListener {#EmptyTestEventListener} + +`::testing::EmptyTestEventListener` + +Provides an empty implementation of all methods in the +[`TestEventListener`](#TestEventListener) interface, such that a subclass only +needs to override the methods it cares about. + +### Environment {#Environment} + +`::testing::Environment` + +Represents a global test environment. See +[Global Set-Up and Tear-Down](../advanced.md#global-set-up-and-tear-down). + +#### Protected Methods {#Environment-protected} + +##### SetUp {#Environment::SetUp} + +`virtual void Environment::SetUp()` + +Override this to define how to set up the environment. + +##### TearDown {#Environment::TearDown} + +`virtual void Environment::TearDown()` + +Override this to define how to tear down the environment. + +### ScopedTrace {#ScopedTrace} + +`::testing::ScopedTrace` + +An instance of this class causes a trace to be included in every test failure +message generated by code in the scope of the lifetime of the `ScopedTrace` +instance. The effect is undone with the destruction of the instance. + +The `ScopedTrace` constructor has the following form: + +```cpp +template +ScopedTrace(const char* file, int line, const T& message) +``` + +Example usage: + +```cpp +::testing::ScopedTrace trace("file.cc", 123, "message"); +``` + +The resulting trace includes the given source file path and line number, and the +given message. The `message` argument can be anything streamable to +`std::ostream`. + +See also [`SCOPED_TRACE`](#SCOPED_TRACE). + +### Test {#Test} + +`::testing::Test` + +The abstract class that all tests inherit from. `Test` is not copyable. + +#### Public Methods {#Test-public} + +##### SetUpTestSuite {#Test::SetUpTestSuite} + +`static void Test::SetUpTestSuite()` + +Performs shared setup for all tests in the test suite. GoogleTest calls +`SetUpTestSuite()` before running the first test in the test suite. + +##### TearDownTestSuite {#Test::TearDownTestSuite} + +`static void Test::TearDownTestSuite()` + +Performs shared teardown for all tests in the test suite. GoogleTest calls +`TearDownTestSuite()` after running the last test in the test suite. + +##### HasFatalFailure {#Test::HasFatalFailure} + +`static bool Test::HasFatalFailure()` + +Returns true if and only if the current test has a fatal failure. + +##### HasNonfatalFailure {#Test::HasNonfatalFailure} + +`static bool Test::HasNonfatalFailure()` + +Returns true if and only if the current test has a nonfatal failure. + +##### HasFailure {#Test::HasFailure} + +`static bool Test::HasFailure()` + +Returns true if and only if the current test has any failure, either fatal or +nonfatal. + +##### IsSkipped {#Test::IsSkipped} + +`static bool Test::IsSkipped()` + +Returns true if and only if the current test was skipped. + +##### RecordProperty {#Test::RecordProperty} + +`static void Test::RecordProperty(const std::string& key, const std::string& +value)` \ +`static void Test::RecordProperty(const std::string& key, int value)` + +Logs a property for the current test, test suite, or entire invocation of the +test program. Only the last value for a given key is logged. + +The key must be a valid XML attribute name, and cannot conflict with the ones +already used by GoogleTest (`name`, `status`, `time`, `classname`, `type_param`, +and `value_param`). + +`RecordProperty` is `public static` so it can be called from utility functions +that are not members of the test fixture. + +Calls to `RecordProperty` made during the lifespan of the test (from the moment +its constructor starts to the moment its destructor finishes) are output in XML +as attributes of the `` element. Properties recorded from a fixture's +`SetUpTestSuite` or `TearDownTestSuite` methods are logged as attributes of the +corresponding `` element. Calls to `RecordProperty` made in the +global context (before or after invocation of `RUN_ALL_TESTS` or from the +`SetUp`/`TearDown` methods of registered `Environment` objects) are output as +attributes of the `` element. + +#### Protected Methods {#Test-protected} + +##### SetUp {#Test::SetUp} + +`virtual void Test::SetUp()` + +Override this to perform test fixture setup. GoogleTest calls `SetUp()` before +running each individual test. + +##### TearDown {#Test::TearDown} + +`virtual void Test::TearDown()` + +Override this to perform test fixture teardown. GoogleTest calls `TearDown()` +after running each individual test. + +### TestWithParam {#TestWithParam} + +`::testing::TestWithParam` + +A convenience class which inherits from both [`Test`](#Test) and +[`WithParamInterface`](#WithParamInterface). + +### TestSuite {#TestSuite} + +Represents a test suite. `TestSuite` is not copyable. + +#### Public Methods {#TestSuite-public} + +##### name {#TestSuite::name} + +`const char* TestSuite::name() const` + +Gets the name of the test suite. + +##### type_param {#TestSuite::type_param} + +`const char* TestSuite::type_param() const` + +Returns the name of the parameter type, or `NULL` if this is not a typed or +type-parameterized test suite. See [Typed Tests](../advanced.md#typed-tests) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests). + +##### should_run {#TestSuite::should_run} + +`bool TestSuite::should_run() const` + +Returns true if any test in this test suite should run. + +##### successful_test_count {#TestSuite::successful_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::successful_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of successful tests in this test suite. + +##### skipped_test_count {#TestSuite::skipped_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::skipped_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of skipped tests in this test suite. + +##### failed_test_count {#TestSuite::failed_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::failed_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of failed tests in this test suite. + +##### reportable_disabled_test_count {#TestSuite::reportable_disabled_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::reportable_disabled_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of disabled tests that will be reported in the XML report. + +##### disabled_test_count {#TestSuite::disabled_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::disabled_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of disabled tests in this test suite. + +##### reportable_test_count {#TestSuite::reportable_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::reportable_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of tests to be printed in the XML report. + +##### test_to_run_count {#TestSuite::test_to_run_count} + +`int TestSuite::test_to_run_count() const` + +Get the number of tests in this test suite that should run. + +##### total_test_count {#TestSuite::total_test_count} + +`int TestSuite::total_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of all tests in this test suite. + +##### Passed {#TestSuite::Passed} + +`bool TestSuite::Passed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test suite passed. + +##### Failed {#TestSuite::Failed} + +`bool TestSuite::Failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test suite failed. + +##### elapsed_time {#TestSuite::elapsed_time} + +`TimeInMillis TestSuite::elapsed_time() const` + +Returns the elapsed time, in milliseconds. + +##### start_timestamp {#TestSuite::start_timestamp} + +`TimeInMillis TestSuite::start_timestamp() const` + +Gets the time of the test suite start, in ms from the start of the UNIX epoch. + +##### GetTestInfo {#TestSuite::GetTestInfo} + +`const TestInfo* TestSuite::GetTestInfo(int i) const` + +Returns the [`TestInfo`](#TestInfo) for the `i`-th test among all the tests. `i` +can range from 0 to `total_test_count() - 1`. If `i` is not in that range, +returns `NULL`. + +##### ad_hoc_test_result {#TestSuite::ad_hoc_test_result} + +`const TestResult& TestSuite::ad_hoc_test_result() const` + +Returns the [`TestResult`](#TestResult) that holds test properties recorded +during execution of `SetUpTestSuite` and `TearDownTestSuite`. + +### TestInfo {#TestInfo} + +`::testing::TestInfo` + +Stores information about a test. + +#### Public Methods {#TestInfo-public} + +##### test_suite_name {#TestInfo::test_suite_name} + +`const char* TestInfo::test_suite_name() const` + +Returns the test suite name. + +##### name {#TestInfo::name} + +`const char* TestInfo::name() const` + +Returns the test name. + +##### type_param {#TestInfo::type_param} + +`const char* TestInfo::type_param() const` + +Returns the name of the parameter type, or `NULL` if this is not a typed or +type-parameterized test. See [Typed Tests](../advanced.md#typed-tests) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests). + +##### value_param {#TestInfo::value_param} + +`const char* TestInfo::value_param() const` + +Returns the text representation of the value parameter, or `NULL` if this is not +a value-parameterized test. See +[Value-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#value-parameterized-tests). + +##### file {#TestInfo::file} + +`const char* TestInfo::file() const` + +Returns the file name where this test is defined. + +##### line {#TestInfo::line} + +`int TestInfo::line() const` + +Returns the line where this test is defined. + +##### is_in_another_shard {#TestInfo::is_in_another_shard} + +`bool TestInfo::is_in_another_shard() const` + +Returns true if this test should not be run because it's in another shard. + +##### should_run {#TestInfo::should_run} + +`bool TestInfo::should_run() const` + +Returns true if this test should run, that is if the test is not disabled (or it +is disabled but the `also_run_disabled_tests` flag has been specified) and its +full name matches the user-specified filter. + +GoogleTest allows the user to filter the tests by their full names. Only the +tests that match the filter will run. See +[Running a Subset of the Tests](../advanced.md#running-a-subset-of-the-tests) +for more information. + +##### is_reportable {#TestInfo::is_reportable} + +`bool TestInfo::is_reportable() const` + +Returns true if and only if this test will appear in the XML report. + +##### result {#TestInfo::result} + +`const TestResult* TestInfo::result() const` + +Returns the result of the test. See [`TestResult`](#TestResult). + +### TestParamInfo {#TestParamInfo} + +`::testing::TestParamInfo` + +Describes a parameter to a value-parameterized test. The type `T` is the type of +the parameter. + +Contains the fields `param` and `index` which hold the value of the parameter +and its integer index respectively. + +### UnitTest {#UnitTest} + +`::testing::UnitTest` + +This class contains information about the test program. + +`UnitTest` is a singleton class. The only instance is created when +`UnitTest::GetInstance()` is first called. This instance is never deleted. + +`UnitTest` is not copyable. + +#### Public Methods {#UnitTest-public} + +##### GetInstance {#UnitTest::GetInstance} + +`static UnitTest* UnitTest::GetInstance()` + +Gets the singleton `UnitTest` object. The first time this method is called, a +`UnitTest` object is constructed and returned. Consecutive calls will return the +same object. + +##### original_working_dir {#UnitTest::original_working_dir} + +`const char* UnitTest::original_working_dir() const` + +Returns the working directory when the first [`TEST()`](#TEST) or +[`TEST_F()`](#TEST_F) was executed. The `UnitTest` object owns the string. + +##### current_test_suite {#UnitTest::current_test_suite} + +`const TestSuite* UnitTest::current_test_suite() const` + +Returns the [`TestSuite`](#TestSuite) object for the test that's currently +running, or `NULL` if no test is running. + +##### current_test_info {#UnitTest::current_test_info} + +`const TestInfo* UnitTest::current_test_info() const` + +Returns the [`TestInfo`](#TestInfo) object for the test that's currently +running, or `NULL` if no test is running. + +##### random_seed {#UnitTest::random_seed} + +`int UnitTest::random_seed() const` + +Returns the random seed used at the start of the current test run. + +##### successful_test_suite_count {#UnitTest::successful_test_suite_count} + +`int UnitTest::successful_test_suite_count() const` + +Gets the number of successful test suites. + +##### failed_test_suite_count {#UnitTest::failed_test_suite_count} + +`int UnitTest::failed_test_suite_count() const` + +Gets the number of failed test suites. + +##### total_test_suite_count {#UnitTest::total_test_suite_count} + +`int UnitTest::total_test_suite_count() const` + +Gets the number of all test suites. + +##### test_suite_to_run_count {#UnitTest::test_suite_to_run_count} + +`int UnitTest::test_suite_to_run_count() const` + +Gets the number of all test suites that contain at least one test that should +run. + +##### successful_test_count {#UnitTest::successful_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::successful_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of successful tests. + +##### skipped_test_count {#UnitTest::skipped_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::skipped_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of skipped tests. + +##### failed_test_count {#UnitTest::failed_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::failed_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of failed tests. + +##### reportable_disabled_test_count {#UnitTest::reportable_disabled_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::reportable_disabled_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of disabled tests that will be reported in the XML report. + +##### disabled_test_count {#UnitTest::disabled_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::disabled_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of disabled tests. + +##### reportable_test_count {#UnitTest::reportable_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::reportable_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of tests to be printed in the XML report. + +##### total_test_count {#UnitTest::total_test_count} + +`int UnitTest::total_test_count() const` + +Gets the number of all tests. + +##### test_to_run_count {#UnitTest::test_to_run_count} + +`int UnitTest::test_to_run_count() const` + +Gets the number of tests that should run. + +##### start_timestamp {#UnitTest::start_timestamp} + +`TimeInMillis UnitTest::start_timestamp() const` + +Gets the time of the test program start, in ms from the start of the UNIX epoch. + +##### elapsed_time {#UnitTest::elapsed_time} + +`TimeInMillis UnitTest::elapsed_time() const` + +Gets the elapsed time, in milliseconds. + +##### Passed {#UnitTest::Passed} + +`bool UnitTest::Passed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the unit test passed (i.e. all test suites passed). + +##### Failed {#UnitTest::Failed} + +`bool UnitTest::Failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the unit test failed (i.e. some test suite failed or +something outside of all tests failed). + +##### GetTestSuite {#UnitTest::GetTestSuite} + +`const TestSuite* UnitTest::GetTestSuite(int i) const` + +Gets the [`TestSuite`](#TestSuite) object for the `i`-th test suite among all +the test suites. `i` can range from 0 to `total_test_suite_count() - 1`. If `i` +is not in that range, returns `NULL`. + +##### ad_hoc_test_result {#UnitTest::ad_hoc_test_result} + +`const TestResult& UnitTest::ad_hoc_test_result() const` + +Returns the [`TestResult`](#TestResult) containing information on test failures +and properties logged outside of individual test suites. + +##### listeners {#UnitTest::listeners} + +`TestEventListeners& UnitTest::listeners()` + +Returns the list of event listeners that can be used to track events inside +GoogleTest. See [`TestEventListeners`](#TestEventListeners). + +### TestEventListener {#TestEventListener} + +`::testing::TestEventListener` + +The interface for tracing execution of tests. The methods below are listed in +the order the corresponding events are fired. + +#### Public Methods {#TestEventListener-public} + +##### OnTestProgramStart {#TestEventListener::OnTestProgramStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestProgramStart(const UnitTest& unit_test)` + +Fired before any test activity starts. + +##### OnTestIterationStart {#TestEventListener::OnTestIterationStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestIterationStart(const UnitTest& unit_test, +int iteration)` + +Fired before each iteration of tests starts. There may be more than one +iteration if `GTEST_FLAG(repeat)` is set. `iteration` is the iteration index, +starting from 0. + +##### OnEnvironmentsSetUpStart {#TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsSetUpStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsSetUpStart(const UnitTest& +unit_test)` + +Fired before environment set-up for each iteration of tests starts. + +##### OnEnvironmentsSetUpEnd {#TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsSetUpEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsSetUpEnd(const UnitTest& +unit_test)` + +Fired after environment set-up for each iteration of tests ends. + +##### OnTestSuiteStart {#TestEventListener::OnTestSuiteStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestSuiteStart(const TestSuite& test_suite)` + +Fired before the test suite starts. + +##### OnTestStart {#TestEventListener::OnTestStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestStart(const TestInfo& test_info)` + +Fired before the test starts. + +##### OnTestPartResult {#TestEventListener::OnTestPartResult} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestPartResult(const TestPartResult& +test_part_result)` + +Fired after a failed assertion or a `SUCCEED()` invocation. If you want to throw +an exception from this function to skip to the next test, it must be an +[`AssertionException`](#AssertionException) or inherited from it. + +##### OnTestEnd {#TestEventListener::OnTestEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestEnd(const TestInfo& test_info)` + +Fired after the test ends. + +##### OnTestSuiteEnd {#TestEventListener::OnTestSuiteEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestSuiteEnd(const TestSuite& test_suite)` + +Fired after the test suite ends. + +##### OnEnvironmentsTearDownStart {#TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsTearDownStart} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsTearDownStart(const UnitTest& +unit_test)` + +Fired before environment tear-down for each iteration of tests starts. + +##### OnEnvironmentsTearDownEnd {#TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsTearDownEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnEnvironmentsTearDownEnd(const UnitTest& +unit_test)` + +Fired after environment tear-down for each iteration of tests ends. + +##### OnTestIterationEnd {#TestEventListener::OnTestIterationEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestIterationEnd(const UnitTest& unit_test, +int iteration)` + +Fired after each iteration of tests finishes. + +##### OnTestProgramEnd {#TestEventListener::OnTestProgramEnd} + +`virtual void TestEventListener::OnTestProgramEnd(const UnitTest& unit_test)` + +Fired after all test activities have ended. + +### TestEventListeners {#TestEventListeners} + +`::testing::TestEventListeners` + +Lets users add listeners to track events in GoogleTest. + +#### Public Methods {#TestEventListeners-public} + +##### Append {#TestEventListeners::Append} + +`void TestEventListeners::Append(TestEventListener* listener)` + +Appends an event listener to the end of the list. GoogleTest assumes ownership +of the listener (i.e. it will delete the listener when the test program +finishes). + +##### Release {#TestEventListeners::Release} + +`TestEventListener* TestEventListeners::Release(TestEventListener* listener)` + +Removes the given event listener from the list and returns it. It then becomes +the caller's responsibility to delete the listener. Returns `NULL` if the +listener is not found in the list. + +##### default_result_printer {#TestEventListeners::default_result_printer} + +`TestEventListener* TestEventListeners::default_result_printer() const` + +Returns the standard listener responsible for the default console output. Can be +removed from the listeners list to shut down default console output. Note that +removing this object from the listener list with +[`Release()`](#TestEventListeners::Release) transfers its ownership to the +caller and makes this function return `NULL` the next time. + +##### default_xml_generator {#TestEventListeners::default_xml_generator} + +`TestEventListener* TestEventListeners::default_xml_generator() const` + +Returns the standard listener responsible for the default XML output controlled +by the `--gtest_output=xml` flag. Can be removed from the listeners list by +users who want to shut down the default XML output controlled by this flag and +substitute it with custom one. Note that removing this object from the listener +list with [`Release()`](#TestEventListeners::Release) transfers its ownership to +the caller and makes this function return `NULL` the next time. + +### TestPartResult {#TestPartResult} + +`::testing::TestPartResult` + +A copyable object representing the result of a test part (i.e. an assertion or +an explicit `FAIL()`, `ADD_FAILURE()`, or `SUCCESS()`). + +#### Public Methods {#TestPartResult-public} + +##### type {#TestPartResult::type} + +`Type TestPartResult::type() const` + +Gets the outcome of the test part. + +The return type `Type` is an enum defined as follows: + +```cpp +enum Type { + kSuccess, // Succeeded. + kNonFatalFailure, // Failed but the test can continue. + kFatalFailure, // Failed and the test should be terminated. + kSkip // Skipped. +}; +``` + +##### file_name {#TestPartResult::file_name} + +`const char* TestPartResult::file_name() const` + +Gets the name of the source file where the test part took place, or `NULL` if +it's unknown. + +##### line_number {#TestPartResult::line_number} + +`int TestPartResult::line_number() const` + +Gets the line in the source file where the test part took place, or `-1` if it's +unknown. + +##### summary {#TestPartResult::summary} + +`const char* TestPartResult::summary() const` + +Gets the summary of the failure message. + +##### message {#TestPartResult::message} + +`const char* TestPartResult::message() const` + +Gets the message associated with the test part. + +##### skipped {#TestPartResult::skipped} + +`bool TestPartResult::skipped() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test part was skipped. + +##### passed {#TestPartResult::passed} + +`bool TestPartResult::passed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test part passed. + +##### nonfatally_failed {#TestPartResult::nonfatally_failed} + +`bool TestPartResult::nonfatally_failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test part non-fatally failed. + +##### fatally_failed {#TestPartResult::fatally_failed} + +`bool TestPartResult::fatally_failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test part fatally failed. + +##### failed {#TestPartResult::failed} + +`bool TestPartResult::failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test part failed. + +### TestProperty {#TestProperty} + +`::testing::TestProperty` + +A copyable object representing a user-specified test property which can be +output as a key/value string pair. + +#### Public Methods {#TestProperty-public} + +##### key {#key} + +`const char* key() const` + +Gets the user-supplied key. + +##### value {#value} + +`const char* value() const` + +Gets the user-supplied value. + +##### SetValue {#SetValue} + +`void SetValue(const std::string& new_value)` + +Sets a new value, overriding the previous one. + +### TestResult {#TestResult} + +`::testing::TestResult` + +Contains information about the result of a single test. + +`TestResult` is not copyable. + +#### Public Methods {#TestResult-public} + +##### total_part_count {#TestResult::total_part_count} + +`int TestResult::total_part_count() const` + +Gets the number of all test parts. This is the sum of the number of successful +test parts and the number of failed test parts. + +##### test_property_count {#TestResult::test_property_count} + +`int TestResult::test_property_count() const` + +Returns the number of test properties. + +##### Passed {#TestResult::Passed} + +`bool TestResult::Passed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test passed (i.e. no test part failed). + +##### Skipped {#TestResult::Skipped} + +`bool TestResult::Skipped() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test was skipped. + +##### Failed {#TestResult::Failed} + +`bool TestResult::Failed() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test failed. + +##### HasFatalFailure {#TestResult::HasFatalFailure} + +`bool TestResult::HasFatalFailure() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test fatally failed. + +##### HasNonfatalFailure {#TestResult::HasNonfatalFailure} + +`bool TestResult::HasNonfatalFailure() const` + +Returns true if and only if the test has a non-fatal failure. + +##### elapsed_time {#TestResult::elapsed_time} + +`TimeInMillis TestResult::elapsed_time() const` + +Returns the elapsed time, in milliseconds. + +##### start_timestamp {#TestResult::start_timestamp} + +`TimeInMillis TestResult::start_timestamp() const` + +Gets the time of the test case start, in ms from the start of the UNIX epoch. + +##### GetTestPartResult {#TestResult::GetTestPartResult} + +`const TestPartResult& TestResult::GetTestPartResult(int i) const` + +Returns the [`TestPartResult`](#TestPartResult) for the `i`-th test part result +among all the results. `i` can range from 0 to `total_part_count() - 1`. If `i` +is not in that range, aborts the program. + +##### GetTestProperty {#TestResult::GetTestProperty} + +`const TestProperty& TestResult::GetTestProperty(int i) const` + +Returns the [`TestProperty`](#TestProperty) object for the `i`-th test property. +`i` can range from 0 to `test_property_count() - 1`. If `i` is not in that +range, aborts the program. + +### TimeInMillis {#TimeInMillis} + +`::testing::TimeInMillis` + +An integer type representing time in milliseconds. + +### Types {#Types} + +`::testing::Types` + +Represents a list of types for use in typed tests and type-parameterized tests. + +The template argument `T...` can be any number of types, for example: + +``` +::testing::Types +``` + +See [Typed Tests](../advanced.md#typed-tests) and +[Type-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#type-parameterized-tests) for more +information. + +### WithParamInterface {#WithParamInterface} + +`::testing::WithParamInterface` + +The pure interface class that all value-parameterized tests inherit from. + +A value-parameterized test fixture class must inherit from both [`Test`](#Test) +and `WithParamInterface`. In most cases that just means inheriting from +[`TestWithParam`](#TestWithParam), but more complicated test hierarchies may +need to inherit from `Test` and `WithParamInterface` at different levels. + +This interface defines the type alias `ParamType` for the parameter type `T` and +has support for accessing the test parameter value via the `GetParam()` method: + +``` +static const ParamType& GetParam() +``` + +For more information, see +[Value-Parameterized Tests](../advanced.md#value-parameterized-tests). + +## Functions + +GoogleTest defines the following functions to help with writing and running +tests. + +### InitGoogleTest {#InitGoogleTest} + +`void ::testing::InitGoogleTest(int* argc, char** argv)` \ +`void ::testing::InitGoogleTest(int* argc, wchar_t** argv)` \ +`void ::testing::InitGoogleTest()` + +Initializes GoogleTest. This must be called before calling +[`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`](#RUN_ALL_TESTS). In particular, it parses the command line +for the flags that GoogleTest recognizes. Whenever a GoogleTest flag is seen, it +is removed from `argv`, and `*argc` is decremented. + +No value is returned. Instead, the GoogleTest flag variables are updated. + +The `InitGoogleTest(int* argc, wchar_t** argv)` overload can be used in Windows +programs compiled in `UNICODE` mode. + +The argument-less `InitGoogleTest()` overload can be used on Arduino/embedded +platforms where there is no `argc`/`argv`. + +### AddGlobalTestEnvironment {#AddGlobalTestEnvironment} + +`Environment* ::testing::AddGlobalTestEnvironment(Environment* env)` + +Adds a test environment to the test program. Must be called before +[`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`](#RUN_ALL_TESTS) is called. See +[Global Set-Up and Tear-Down](../advanced.md#global-set-up-and-tear-down) for +more information. + +See also [`Environment`](#Environment). + +### RegisterTest {#RegisterTest} + +```cpp +template +TestInfo* ::testing::RegisterTest(const char* test_suite_name, const char* test_name, + const char* type_param, const char* value_param, + const char* file, int line, Factory factory) +``` + +Dynamically registers a test with the framework. + +The `factory` argument is a factory callable (move-constructible) object or +function pointer that creates a new instance of the `Test` object. It handles +ownership to the caller. The signature of the callable is `Fixture*()`, where +`Fixture` is the test fixture class for the test. All tests registered with the +same `test_suite_name` must return the same fixture type. This is checked at +runtime. + +The framework will infer the fixture class from the factory and will call the +`SetUpTestSuite` and `TearDownTestSuite` methods for it. + +Must be called before [`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`](#RUN_ALL_TESTS) is invoked, otherwise +behavior is undefined. + +See +[Registering tests programmatically](../advanced.md#registering-tests-programmatically) +for more information. + +### RUN_ALL_TESTS {#RUN_ALL_TESTS} + +`int RUN_ALL_TESTS()` + +Use this function in `main()` to run all tests. It returns `0` if all tests are +successful, or `1` otherwise. + +`RUN_ALL_TESTS()` should be invoked after the command line has been parsed by +[`InitGoogleTest()`](#InitGoogleTest). + +This function was formerly a macro; thus, it is in the global namespace and has +an all-caps name. + +### AssertionSuccess {#AssertionSuccess} + +`AssertionResult ::testing::AssertionSuccess()` + +Creates a successful assertion result. See +[`AssertionResult`](#AssertionResult). + +### AssertionFailure {#AssertionFailure} + +`AssertionResult ::testing::AssertionFailure()` + +Creates a failed assertion result. Use the `<<` operator to store a failure +message: + +```cpp +::testing::AssertionFailure() << "My failure message"; +``` + +See [`AssertionResult`](#AssertionResult). + +### StaticAssertTypeEq {#StaticAssertTypeEq} + +`::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq()` + +Compile-time assertion for type equality. Compiles if and only if `T1` and `T2` +are the same type. The value it returns is irrelevant. + +See [Type Assertions](../advanced.md#type-assertions) for more information. + +### PrintToString {#PrintToString} + +`std::string ::testing::PrintToString(x)` + +Prints any value `x` using GoogleTest's value printer. + +See +[Teaching GoogleTest How to Print Your Values](../advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values) +for more information. + +### PrintToStringParamName {#PrintToStringParamName} + +`std::string ::testing::PrintToStringParamName(TestParamInfo& info)` + +A built-in parameterized test name generator which returns the result of +[`PrintToString`](#PrintToString) called on `info.param`. Does not work when the +test parameter is a `std::string` or C string. See +[Specifying Names for Value-Parameterized Test Parameters](../advanced.md#specifying-names-for-value-parameterized-test-parameters) +for more information. + +See also [`TestParamInfo`](#TestParamInfo) and +[`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P`](#INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P). diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/samples.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/samples.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d97ca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/docs/samples.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +# Googletest Samples + +If you're like us, you'd like to look at +[googletest samples.](https://github.com/google/googletest/tree/master/googletest/samples) +The sample directory has a number of well-commented samples showing how to use a +variety of googletest features. + +* Sample #1 shows the basic steps of using googletest to test C++ functions. +* Sample #2 shows a more complex unit test for a class with multiple member + functions. +* Sample #3 uses a test fixture. +* Sample #4 teaches you how to use googletest and `googletest.h` together to + get the best of both libraries. +* Sample #5 puts shared testing logic in a base test fixture, and reuses it in + derived fixtures. +* Sample #6 demonstrates type-parameterized tests. +* Sample #7 teaches the basics of value-parameterized tests. +* Sample #8 shows using `Combine()` in value-parameterized tests. +* Sample #9 shows use of the listener API to modify Google Test's console + output and the use of its reflection API to inspect test results. +* Sample #10 shows use of the listener API to implement a primitive memory + leak checker. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CHANGES b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CHANGES deleted file mode 100644 index d6f2f76..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CHANGES +++ /dev/null @@ -1,126 +0,0 @@ -Changes for 1.7.0: - -* All new improvements in Google Test 1.7.0. -* New feature: matchers DoubleNear(), FloatNear(), - NanSensitiveDoubleNear(), NanSensitiveFloatNear(), - UnorderedElementsAre(), UnorderedElementsAreArray(), WhenSorted(), - WhenSortedBy(), IsEmpty(), and SizeIs(). -* Improvement: Google Mock can now be built as a DLL. -* Improvement: when compiled by a C++11 compiler, matchers AllOf() - and AnyOf() can accept an arbitrary number of matchers. -* Improvement: when compiled by a C++11 compiler, matchers - ElementsAreArray() can accept an initializer list. -* Improvement: when exceptions are enabled, a mock method with no - default action now throws instead crashing the test. -* Improvement: added class testing::StringMatchResultListener to aid - definition of composite matchers. -* Improvement: function return types used in MOCK_METHOD*() macros can - now contain unprotected commas. -* Improvement (potentially breaking): EXPECT_THAT() and ASSERT_THAT() - are now more strict in ensuring that the value type and the matcher - type are compatible, catching potential bugs in tests. -* Improvement: Pointee() now works on an optional. -* Improvement: the ElementsAreArray() matcher can now take a vector or - iterator range as input, and makes a copy of its input elements - before the conversion to a Matcher. -* Improvement: the Google Mock Generator can now generate mocks for - some class templates. -* Bug fix: mock object destruction triggerred by another mock object's - destruction no longer hangs. -* Improvement: Google Mock Doctor works better with newer Clang and - GCC now. -* Compatibility fixes. -* Bug/warning fixes. - -Changes for 1.6.0: - -* Compilation is much faster and uses much less memory, especially - when the constructor and destructor of a mock class are moved out of - the class body. -* New matchers: Pointwise(), Each(). -* New actions: ReturnPointee() and ReturnRefOfCopy(). -* CMake support. -* Project files for Visual Studio 2010. -* AllOf() and AnyOf() can handle up-to 10 arguments now. -* Google Mock doctor understands Clang error messages now. -* SetArgPointee<> now accepts string literals. -* gmock_gen.py handles storage specifier macros and template return - types now. -* Compatibility fixes. -* Bug fixes and implementation clean-ups. -* Potentially incompatible changes: disables the harmful 'make install' - command in autotools. - -Potentially breaking changes: - -* The description string for MATCHER*() changes from Python-style - interpolation to an ordinary C++ string expression. -* SetArgumentPointee is deprecated in favor of SetArgPointee. -* Some non-essential project files for Visual Studio 2005 are removed. - -Changes for 1.5.0: - - * New feature: Google Mock can be safely used in multi-threaded tests - on platforms having pthreads. - * New feature: function for printing a value of arbitrary type. - * New feature: function ExplainMatchResult() for easy definition of - composite matchers. - * The new matcher API lets user-defined matchers generate custom - explanations more directly and efficiently. - * Better failure messages all around. - * NotNull() and IsNull() now work with smart pointers. - * Field() and Property() now work when the matcher argument is a pointer - passed by reference. - * Regular expression matchers on all platforms. - * Added GCC 4.0 support for Google Mock Doctor. - * Added gmock_all_test.cc for compiling most Google Mock tests - in a single file. - * Significantly cleaned up compiler warnings. - * Bug fixes, better test coverage, and implementation clean-ups. - - Potentially breaking changes: - - * Custom matchers defined using MatcherInterface or MakePolymorphicMatcher() - need to be updated after upgrading to Google Mock 1.5.0; matchers defined - using MATCHER or MATCHER_P* aren't affected. - * Dropped support for 'make install'. - -Changes for 1.4.0 (we skipped 1.2.* and 1.3.* to match the version of -Google Test): - - * Works in more environments: Symbian and minGW, Visual C++ 7.1. - * Lighter weight: comes with our own implementation of TR1 tuple (no - more dependency on Boost!). - * New feature: --gmock_catch_leaked_mocks for detecting leaked mocks. - * New feature: ACTION_TEMPLATE for defining templatized actions. - * New feature: the .After() clause for specifying expectation order. - * New feature: the .With() clause for for specifying inter-argument - constraints. - * New feature: actions ReturnArg(), ReturnNew(...), and - DeleteArg(). - * New feature: matchers Key(), Pair(), Args<...>(), AllArgs(), IsNull(), - and Contains(). - * New feature: utility class MockFunction, useful for checkpoints, etc. - * New feature: functions Value(x, m) and SafeMatcherCast(m). - * New feature: copying a mock object is rejected at compile time. - * New feature: a script for fusing all Google Mock and Google Test - source files for easy deployment. - * Improved the Google Mock doctor to diagnose more diseases. - * Improved the Google Mock generator script. - * Compatibility fixes for Mac OS X and gcc. - * Bug fixes and implementation clean-ups. - -Changes for 1.1.0: - - * New feature: ability to use Google Mock with any testing framework. - * New feature: macros for easily defining new matchers - * New feature: macros for easily defining new actions. - * New feature: more container matchers. - * New feature: actions for accessing function arguments and throwing - exceptions. - * Improved the Google Mock doctor script for diagnosing compiler errors. - * Bug fixes and implementation clean-ups. - -Changes for 1.0.0: - - * Initial Open Source release of Google Mock diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CMakeLists.txt b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CMakeLists.txt index b9b53f6..e7df8ec 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CMakeLists.txt @@ -1,14 +1,13 @@ ######################################################################## +# Note: CMake support is community-based. The maintainers do not use CMake +# internally. +# # CMake build script for Google Mock. # # To run the tests for Google Mock itself on Linux, use 'make test' or # ctest. You can select which tests to run using 'ctest -R regex'. # For more options, run 'ctest --help'. -# BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is a standard CMake variable, but we declare it here to -# make it prominent in the GUI. -option(BUILD_SHARED_LIBS "Build shared libraries (DLLs)." OFF) - option(gmock_build_tests "Build all of Google Mock's own tests." OFF) # A directory to find Google Test sources. @@ -37,8 +36,13 @@ endif() # as ${gmock_SOURCE_DIR} and to the root binary directory as # ${gmock_BINARY_DIR}. # Language "C" is required for find_package(Threads). -project(gmock CXX C) -cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.6.2) +if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS 3.0) + project(gmock CXX C) +else() + cmake_policy(SET CMP0048 NEW) + project(gmock VERSION ${GOOGLETEST_VERSION} LANGUAGES CXX C) +endif() +cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.12) if (COMMAND set_up_hermetic_build) set_up_hermetic_build() @@ -48,7 +52,17 @@ endif() # targets to the current scope. We are placing Google Test's binary # directory in a subdirectory of our own as VC compilation may break # if they are the same (the default). -add_subdirectory("${gtest_dir}" "${gmock_BINARY_DIR}/gtest") +add_subdirectory("${gtest_dir}" "${gmock_BINARY_DIR}/${gtest_dir}") + + +# These commands only run if this is the main project +if(CMAKE_PROJECT_NAME STREQUAL "gmock" OR CMAKE_PROJECT_NAME STREQUAL "googletest-distribution") + # BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is a standard CMake variable, but we declare it here to + # make it prominent in the GUI. + option(BUILD_SHARED_LIBS "Build shared libraries (DLLs)." OFF) +else() + mark_as_advanced(gmock_build_tests) +endif() # Although Google Test's CMakeLists.txt calls this function, the # changes there don't affect the current scope. Therefore we have to @@ -56,22 +70,13 @@ add_subdirectory("${gtest_dir}" "${gmock_BINARY_DIR}/gtest") config_compiler_and_linker() # from ${gtest_dir}/cmake/internal_utils.cmake # Adds Google Mock's and Google Test's header directories to the search path. -include_directories("${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include" - "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}" - "${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}/include" - # This directory is needed to build directly from Google - # Test sources. - "${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}") - -# Summary of tuple support for Microsoft Visual Studio: -# Compiler version(MS) version(cmake) Support -# ---------- ----------- -------------- ----------------------------- -# <= VS 2010 <= 10 <= 1600 Use Google Tests's own tuple. -# VS 2012 11 1700 std::tr1::tuple + _VARIADIC_MAX=10 -# VS 2013 12 1800 std::tr1::tuple -if (MSVC AND MSVC_VERSION EQUAL 1700) - add_definitions(/D _VARIADIC_MAX=10) -endif() +set(gmock_build_include_dirs + "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include" + "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}" + "${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}/include" + # This directory is needed to build directly from Google Test sources. + "${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}") +include_directories(${gmock_build_include_dirs}) ######################################################################## # @@ -81,25 +86,42 @@ endif() # Google Mock libraries. We build them using more strict warnings than what # are used for other targets, to ensure that Google Mock can be compiled by # a user aggressive about warnings. -cxx_library(gmock - "${cxx_strict}" - "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" - src/gmock-all.cc) - -cxx_library(gmock_main - "${cxx_strict}" - "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" - src/gmock-all.cc - src/gmock_main.cc) +if (MSVC) + cxx_library(gmock + "${cxx_strict}" + "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" + src/gmock-all.cc) + cxx_library(gmock_main + "${cxx_strict}" + "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" + src/gmock-all.cc + src/gmock_main.cc) +else() + cxx_library(gmock "${cxx_strict}" src/gmock-all.cc) + target_link_libraries(gmock PUBLIC gtest) + set_target_properties(gmock PROPERTIES VERSION ${GOOGLETEST_VERSION}) + cxx_library(gmock_main "${cxx_strict}" src/gmock_main.cc) + target_link_libraries(gmock_main PUBLIC gmock) + set_target_properties(gmock_main PROPERTIES VERSION ${GOOGLETEST_VERSION}) +endif() # If the CMake version supports it, attach header directory information # to the targets for when we are part of a parent build (ie being pulled # in via add_subdirectory() rather than being a standalone build). if (DEFINED CMAKE_VERSION AND NOT "${CMAKE_VERSION}" VERSION_LESS "2.8.11") - target_include_directories(gmock INTERFACE "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include") - target_include_directories(gmock_main INTERFACE "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include") + target_include_directories(gmock SYSTEM INTERFACE + "$" + "$/${CMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR}>") + target_include_directories(gmock_main SYSTEM INTERFACE + "$" + "$/${CMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR}>") endif() +######################################################################## +# +# Install rules +install_project(gmock gmock_main) + ######################################################################## # # Google Mock's own tests. @@ -116,16 +138,21 @@ if (gmock_build_tests) # 'make test' or ctest. enable_testing() + if (MINGW OR CYGWIN) + if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS "2.8.12") + add_compile_options("-Wa,-mbig-obj") + else() + add_definitions("-Wa,-mbig-obj") + endif() + endif() + ############################################################ # C++ tests built with standard compiler flags. cxx_test(gmock-actions_test gmock_main) cxx_test(gmock-cardinalities_test gmock_main) cxx_test(gmock_ex_test gmock_main) - cxx_test(gmock-generated-actions_test gmock_main) - cxx_test(gmock-generated-function-mockers_test gmock_main) - cxx_test(gmock-generated-internal-utils_test gmock_main) - cxx_test(gmock-generated-matchers_test gmock_main) + cxx_test(gmock-function-mocker_test gmock_main) cxx_test(gmock-internal-utils_test gmock_main) cxx_test(gmock-matchers_test gmock_main) cxx_test(gmock-more-actions_test gmock_main) @@ -135,7 +162,7 @@ if (gmock_build_tests) cxx_test(gmock_link_test gmock_main test/gmock_link2_test.cc) cxx_test(gmock_test gmock_main) - if (CMAKE_USE_PTHREADS_INIT) + if (DEFINED GTEST_HAS_PTHREAD) cxx_test(gmock_stress_test gmock) endif() @@ -146,23 +173,20 @@ if (gmock_build_tests) ############################################################ # C++ tests built with non-standard compiler flags. - cxx_library(gmock_main_no_exception "${cxx_no_exception}" - "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" src/gmock-all.cc src/gmock_main.cc) - - cxx_library(gmock_main_no_rtti "${cxx_no_rtti}" - "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" src/gmock-all.cc src/gmock_main.cc) - - if (NOT MSVC OR MSVC_VERSION LESS 1600) # 1600 is Visual Studio 2010. - # Visual Studio 2010, 2012, and 2013 define symbols in std::tr1 that - # conflict with our own definitions. Therefore using our own tuple does not - # work on those compilers. - cxx_library(gmock_main_use_own_tuple "${cxx_use_own_tuple}" + if (MSVC) + cxx_library(gmock_main_no_exception "${cxx_no_exception}" "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" src/gmock-all.cc src/gmock_main.cc) - cxx_test_with_flags(gmock_use_own_tuple_test "${cxx_use_own_tuple}" - gmock_main_use_own_tuple test/gmock-spec-builders_test.cc) - endif() + cxx_library(gmock_main_no_rtti "${cxx_no_rtti}" + "${gtest_dir}/src/gtest-all.cc" src/gmock-all.cc src/gmock_main.cc) + else() + cxx_library(gmock_main_no_exception "${cxx_no_exception}" src/gmock_main.cc) + target_link_libraries(gmock_main_no_exception PUBLIC gmock) + + cxx_library(gmock_main_no_rtti "${cxx_no_rtti}" src/gmock_main.cc) + target_link_libraries(gmock_main_no_rtti PUBLIC gmock) + endif() cxx_test_with_flags(gmock-more-actions_no_exception_test "${cxx_no_exception}" gmock_main_no_exception test/gmock-more-actions_test.cc) diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CONTRIBUTORS b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CONTRIBUTORS deleted file mode 100644 index 6e9ae36..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/CONTRIBUTORS +++ /dev/null @@ -1,40 +0,0 @@ -# This file contains a list of people who've made non-trivial -# contribution to the Google C++ Mocking Framework project. People -# who commit code to the project are encouraged to add their names -# here. Please keep the list sorted by first names. - -Benoit Sigoure -Bogdan Piloca -Chandler Carruth -Dave MacLachlan -David Anderson -Dean Sturtevant -Gene Volovich -Hal Burch -Jeffrey Yasskin -Jim Keller -Joe Walnes -Jon Wray -Keir Mierle -Keith Ray -Kostya Serebryany -Lev Makhlis -Manuel Klimek -Mario Tanev -Mark Paskin -Markus Heule -Matthew Simmons -Mike Bland -Neal Norwitz -Nermin Ozkiranartli -Owen Carlsen -Paneendra Ba -Paul Menage -Piotr Kaminski -Russ Rufer -Sverre Sundsdal -Takeshi Yoshino -Vadim Berman -Vlad Losev -Wolfgang Klier -Zhanyong Wan diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/Makefile.am b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/Makefile.am deleted file mode 100644 index 9adbc51..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/Makefile.am +++ /dev/null @@ -1,224 +0,0 @@ -# Automake file - -# Nonstandard package files for distribution. -EXTRA_DIST = LICENSE - -# We may need to build our internally packaged gtest. If so, it will be -# included in the 'subdirs' variable. -SUBDIRS = $(subdirs) - -# This is generated by the configure script, so clean it for distribution. -DISTCLEANFILES = scripts/gmock-config - -# We define the global AM_CPPFLAGS as everything we compile includes from these -# directories. -AM_CPPFLAGS = $(GTEST_CPPFLAGS) -I$(srcdir)/include - -# Modifies compiler and linker flags for pthreads compatibility. -if HAVE_PTHREADS - AM_CXXFLAGS = @PTHREAD_CFLAGS@ -DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 - AM_LIBS = @PTHREAD_LIBS@ -endif - -# Build rules for libraries. -lib_LTLIBRARIES = lib/libgmock.la lib/libgmock_main.la - -lib_libgmock_la_SOURCES = src/gmock-all.cc - -pkginclude_HEADERS = \ - include/gmock/gmock-actions.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-more-actions.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-more-matchers.h \ - include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h \ - include/gmock/gmock.h - -pkginclude_internaldir = $(pkgincludedir)/internal -pkginclude_internal_HEADERS = \ - include/gmock/internal/gmock-generated-internal-utils.h \ - include/gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h \ - include/gmock/internal/gmock-port.h \ - include/gmock/internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h \ - include/gmock/internal/custom/gmock-matchers.h \ - include/gmock/internal/custom/gmock-port.h - -lib_libgmock_main_la_SOURCES = src/gmock_main.cc -lib_libgmock_main_la_LIBADD = lib/libgmock.la - -# Build rules for tests. Automake's naming for some of these variables isn't -# terribly obvious, so this is a brief reference: -# -# TESTS -- Programs run automatically by "make check" -# check_PROGRAMS -- Programs built by "make check" but not necessarily run - -TESTS= -check_PROGRAMS= -AM_LDFLAGS = $(GTEST_LDFLAGS) - -# This exercises all major components of Google Mock. It also -# verifies that libgmock works. -TESTS += test/gmock-spec-builders_test -check_PROGRAMS += test/gmock-spec-builders_test -test_gmock_spec_builders_test_SOURCES = test/gmock-spec-builders_test.cc -test_gmock_spec_builders_test_LDADD = $(GTEST_LIBS) lib/libgmock.la - -# This tests using Google Mock in multiple translation units. It also -# verifies that libgmock_main and libgmock work. -TESTS += test/gmock_link_test -check_PROGRAMS += test/gmock_link_test -test_gmock_link_test_SOURCES = \ - test/gmock_link2_test.cc \ - test/gmock_link_test.cc \ - test/gmock_link_test.h -test_gmock_link_test_LDADD = $(GTEST_LIBS) lib/libgmock_main.la lib/libgmock.la - -if HAVE_PYTHON - # Tests that fused gmock files compile and work. - TESTS += test/gmock_fused_test - check_PROGRAMS += test/gmock_fused_test - test_gmock_fused_test_SOURCES = \ - fused-src/gmock-gtest-all.cc \ - fused-src/gmock/gmock.h \ - fused-src/gmock_main.cc \ - fused-src/gtest/gtest.h \ - test/gmock_test.cc - test_gmock_fused_test_CPPFLAGS = -I"$(srcdir)/fused-src" -endif - -# Google Mock source files that we don't compile directly. -GMOCK_SOURCE_INGLUDES = \ - src/gmock-cardinalities.cc \ - src/gmock-internal-utils.cc \ - src/gmock-matchers.cc \ - src/gmock-spec-builders.cc \ - src/gmock.cc - -EXTRA_DIST += $(GMOCK_SOURCE_INGLUDES) - -# C++ tests that we don't compile using autotools. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - test/gmock-actions_test.cc \ - test/gmock_all_test.cc \ - test/gmock-cardinalities_test.cc \ - test/gmock_ex_test.cc \ - test/gmock-generated-actions_test.cc \ - test/gmock-generated-function-mockers_test.cc \ - test/gmock-generated-internal-utils_test.cc \ - test/gmock-generated-matchers_test.cc \ - test/gmock-internal-utils_test.cc \ - test/gmock-matchers_test.cc \ - test/gmock-more-actions_test.cc \ - test/gmock-nice-strict_test.cc \ - test/gmock-port_test.cc \ - test/gmock_stress_test.cc - -# Python tests, which we don't run using autotools. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - test/gmock_leak_test.py \ - test/gmock_leak_test_.cc \ - test/gmock_output_test.py \ - test/gmock_output_test_.cc \ - test/gmock_output_test_golden.txt \ - test/gmock_test_utils.py - -# Nonstandard package files for distribution. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - CHANGES \ - CONTRIBUTORS \ - make/Makefile - -# Pump scripts for generating Google Mock headers. -# TODO(chandlerc@google.com): automate the generation of *.h from *.h.pump. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump \ - include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump \ - include/gmock/internal/gmock-generated-internal-utils.h.pump \ - include/gmock/internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump - -# Script for fusing Google Mock and Google Test source files. -EXTRA_DIST += scripts/fuse_gmock_files.py - -# The Google Mock Generator tool from the cppclean project. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - scripts/generator/LICENSE \ - scripts/generator/README \ - scripts/generator/README.cppclean \ - scripts/generator/cpp/__init__.py \ - scripts/generator/cpp/ast.py \ - scripts/generator/cpp/gmock_class.py \ - scripts/generator/cpp/keywords.py \ - scripts/generator/cpp/tokenize.py \ - scripts/generator/cpp/utils.py \ - scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py - -# Script for diagnosing compiler errors in programs that use Google -# Mock. -EXTRA_DIST += scripts/gmock_doctor.py - -# CMake scripts. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - CMakeLists.txt - -# Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 projects. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - msvc/2005/gmock.sln \ - msvc/2005/gmock.vcproj \ - msvc/2005/gmock_config.vsprops \ - msvc/2005/gmock_main.vcproj \ - msvc/2005/gmock_test.vcproj - -# Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 projects. -EXTRA_DIST += \ - msvc/2010/gmock.sln \ - msvc/2010/gmock.vcxproj \ - msvc/2010/gmock_config.props \ - msvc/2010/gmock_main.vcxproj \ - msvc/2010/gmock_test.vcxproj - -if HAVE_PYTHON -# gmock_test.cc does not really depend on files generated by the -# fused-gmock-internal rule. However, gmock_test.o does, and it is -# important to include test/gmock_test.cc as part of this rule in order to -# prevent compiling gmock_test.o until all dependent files have been -# generated. -$(test_gmock_fused_test_SOURCES): fused-gmock-internal - -# TODO(vladl@google.com): Find a way to add Google Tests's sources here. -fused-gmock-internal: $(pkginclude_HEADERS) $(pkginclude_internal_HEADERS) \ - $(lib_libgmock_la_SOURCES) $(GMOCK_SOURCE_INGLUDES) \ - $(lib_libgmock_main_la_SOURCES) \ - scripts/fuse_gmock_files.py - mkdir -p "$(srcdir)/fused-src" - chmod -R u+w "$(srcdir)/fused-src" - rm -f "$(srcdir)/fused-src/gtest/gtest.h" - rm -f "$(srcdir)/fused-src/gmock/gmock.h" - rm -f "$(srcdir)/fused-src/gmock-gtest-all.cc" - "$(srcdir)/scripts/fuse_gmock_files.py" "$(srcdir)/fused-src" - cp -f "$(srcdir)/src/gmock_main.cc" "$(srcdir)/fused-src" - -maintainer-clean-local: - rm -rf "$(srcdir)/fused-src" -endif - -# Death tests may produce core dumps in the build directory. In case -# this happens, clean them to keep distcleancheck happy. -CLEANFILES = core - -# Disables 'make install' as installing a compiled version of Google -# Mock can lead to undefined behavior due to violation of the -# One-Definition Rule. - -install-exec-local: - echo "'make install' is dangerous and not supported. Instead, see README for how to integrate Google Mock into your build system." - false - -install-data-local: - echo "'make install' is dangerous and not supported. Instead, see README for how to integrate Google Mock into your build system." - false diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/README.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/README.md index 332beab..ead6883 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/README.md +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/README.md @@ -1,333 +1,44 @@ -## Google Mock ## +# Googletest Mocking (gMock) Framework -The Google C++ mocking framework. +### Overview -### Overview ### - -Google's framework for writing and using C++ mock classes. -It can help you derive better designs of your system and write better tests. +Google's framework for writing and using C++ mock classes. It can help you +derive better designs of your system and write better tests. It is inspired by: - * [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/), - * [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), and - * [Hamcrest](http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/), - -and designed with C++'s specifics in mind. - -Google mock: - - * lets you create mock classes trivially using simple macros. - * supports a rich set of matchers and actions. - * handles unordered, partially ordered, or completely ordered expectations. - * is extensible by users. - -We hope you find it useful! - -### Features ### - - * Provides a declarative syntax for defining mocks. - * Can easily define partial (hybrid) mocks, which are a cross of real - and mock objects. - * Handles functions of arbitrary types and overloaded functions. - * Comes with a rich set of matchers for validating function arguments. - * Uses an intuitive syntax for controlling the behavior of a mock. - * Does automatic verification of expectations (no record-and-replay needed). - * Allows arbitrary (partial) ordering constraints on - function calls to be expressed,. - * Lets a user extend it by defining new matchers and actions. - * Does not use exceptions. - * Is easy to learn and use. - -Please see the project page above for more information as well as the -mailing list for questions, discussions, and development. There is -also an IRC channel on OFTC (irc.oftc.net) #gtest available. Please -join us! - -Please note that code under [scripts/generator](scripts/generator/) is -from [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) and released under -the Apache License, which is different from Google Mock's license. - -## Getting Started ## - -If you are new to the project, we suggest that you read the user -documentation in the following order: - - * Learn the [basics](../googletest/docs/Primer.md) of - Google Test, if you choose to use Google Mock with it (recommended). - * Read [Google Mock for Dummies](docs/ForDummies.md). - * Read the instructions below on how to build Google Mock. - -You can also watch Zhanyong's [talk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpCyLI47rM) on Google Mock's usage and implementation. - -Once you understand the basics, check out the rest of the docs: - - * [CheatSheet](docs/CheatSheet.md) - all the commonly used stuff - at a glance. - * [CookBook](docs/CookBook.md) - recipes for getting things done, - including advanced techniques. - -If you need help, please check the -[KnownIssues](docs/KnownIssues.md) and -[FrequentlyAskedQuestions](docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) before -posting a question on the -[discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock). - - -### Using Google Mock Without Google Test ### - -Google Mock is not a testing framework itself. Instead, it needs a -testing framework for writing tests. Google Mock works seamlessly -with [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/), but -you can also use it with [any C++ testing framework](googlemock/ForDummies.md#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework). - -### Requirements for End Users ### - -Google Mock is implemented on top of [Google Test]( -http://github.com/google/googletest/), and depends on it. -You must use the bundled version of Google Test when using Google Mock. - -You can also easily configure Google Mock to work with another testing -framework, although it will still need Google Test. Please read -["Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework"]( - docs/ForDummies.md#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework) -for instructions. - -Google Mock depends on advanced C++ features and thus requires a more -modern compiler. The following are needed to use Google Mock: - -#### Linux Requirements #### - - * GNU-compatible Make or "gmake" - * POSIX-standard shell - * POSIX(-2) Regular Expressions (regex.h) - * C++98-standard-compliant compiler (e.g. GCC 3.4 or newer) - -#### Windows Requirements #### - - * Microsoft Visual C++ 8.0 SP1 or newer - -#### Mac OS X Requirements #### - - * Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger or newer - * Developer Tools Installed - -### Requirements for Contributors ### - -We welcome patches. If you plan to contribute a patch, you need to -build Google Mock and its tests, which has further requirements: - - * Automake version 1.9 or newer - * Autoconf version 2.59 or newer - * Libtool / Libtoolize - * Python version 2.3 or newer (for running some of the tests and - re-generating certain source files from templates) - -### Building Google Mock ### - -#### Preparing to Build (Unix only) #### - -If you are using a Unix system and plan to use the GNU Autotools build -system to build Google Mock (described below), you'll need to -configure it now. - -To prepare the Autotools build system: - - cd googlemock - autoreconf -fvi - -To build Google Mock and your tests that use it, you need to tell your -build system where to find its headers and source files. The exact -way to do it depends on which build system you use, and is usually -straightforward. - -This section shows how you can integrate Google Mock into your -existing build system. - -Suppose you put Google Mock in directory `${GMOCK_DIR}` and Google Test -in `${GTEST_DIR}` (the latter is `${GMOCK_DIR}/gtest` by default). To -build Google Mock, create a library build target (or a project as -called by Visual Studio and Xcode) to compile - - ${GTEST_DIR}/src/gtest-all.cc and ${GMOCK_DIR}/src/gmock-all.cc - -with - - ${GTEST_DIR}/include and ${GMOCK_DIR}/include - -in the system header search path, and - - ${GTEST_DIR} and ${GMOCK_DIR} - -in the normal header search path. Assuming a Linux-like system and gcc, -something like the following will do: - - g++ -isystem ${GTEST_DIR}/include -I${GTEST_DIR} \ - -isystem ${GMOCK_DIR}/include -I${GMOCK_DIR} \ - -pthread -c ${GTEST_DIR}/src/gtest-all.cc - g++ -isystem ${GTEST_DIR}/include -I${GTEST_DIR} \ - -isystem ${GMOCK_DIR}/include -I${GMOCK_DIR} \ - -pthread -c ${GMOCK_DIR}/src/gmock-all.cc - ar -rv libgmock.a gtest-all.o gmock-all.o - -(We need -pthread as Google Test and Google Mock use threads.) - -Next, you should compile your test source file with -${GTEST\_DIR}/include and ${GMOCK\_DIR}/include in the header search -path, and link it with gmock and any other necessary libraries: - - g++ -isystem ${GTEST_DIR}/include -isystem ${GMOCK_DIR}/include \ - -pthread path/to/your_test.cc libgmock.a -o your_test - -As an example, the make/ directory contains a Makefile that you can -use to build Google Mock on systems where GNU make is available -(e.g. Linux, Mac OS X, and Cygwin). It doesn't try to build Google -Mock's own tests. Instead, it just builds the Google Mock library and -a sample test. You can use it as a starting point for your own build -script. - -If the default settings are correct for your environment, the -following commands should succeed: - - cd ${GMOCK_DIR}/make - make - ./gmock_test - -If you see errors, try to tweak the contents of -[make/Makefile](make/Makefile) to make them go away. - -### Windows ### - -The msvc/2005 directory contains VC++ 2005 projects and the msvc/2010 -directory contains VC++ 2010 projects for building Google Mock and -selected tests. - -Change to the appropriate directory and run "msbuild gmock.sln" to -build the library and tests (or open the gmock.sln in the MSVC IDE). -If you want to create your own project to use with Google Mock, you'll -have to configure it to use the `gmock_config` propety sheet. For that: - - * Open the Property Manager window (View | Other Windows | Property Manager) - * Right-click on your project and select "Add Existing Property Sheet..." - * Navigate to `gmock_config.vsprops` or `gmock_config.props` and select it. - * In Project Properties | Configuration Properties | General | Additional - Include Directories, type /include. - -### Tweaking Google Mock ### - -Google Mock can be used in diverse environments. The default -configuration may not work (or may not work well) out of the box in -some environments. However, you can easily tweak Google Mock by -defining control macros on the compiler command line. Generally, -these macros are named like `GTEST_XYZ` and you define them to either 1 -or 0 to enable or disable a certain feature. - -We list the most frequently used macros below. For a complete list, -see file [${GTEST\_DIR}/include/gtest/internal/gtest-port.h]( -../googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-port.h). - -### Choosing a TR1 Tuple Library ### - -Google Mock uses the C++ Technical Report 1 (TR1) tuple library -heavily. Unfortunately TR1 tuple is not yet widely available with all -compilers. The good news is that Google Test 1.4.0+ implements a -subset of TR1 tuple that's enough for Google Mock's need. Google Mock -will automatically use that implementation when the compiler doesn't -provide TR1 tuple. - -Usually you don't need to care about which tuple library Google Test -and Google Mock use. However, if your project already uses TR1 tuple, -you need to tell Google Test and Google Mock to use the same TR1 tuple -library the rest of your project uses, or the two tuple -implementations will clash. To do that, add - - -DGTEST_USE_OWN_TR1_TUPLE=0 - -to the compiler flags while compiling Google Test, Google Mock, and -your tests. If you want to force Google Test and Google Mock to use -their own tuple library, just add - - -DGTEST_USE_OWN_TR1_TUPLE=1 - -to the compiler flags instead. - -If you want to use Boost's TR1 tuple library with Google Mock, please -refer to the Boost website (http://www.boost.org/) for how to obtain -it and set it up. - -### As a Shared Library (DLL) ### - -Google Mock is compact, so most users can build and link it as a static -library for the simplicity. Google Mock can be used as a DLL, but the -same DLL must contain Google Test as well. See -[Google Test's README][gtest_readme] -for instructions on how to set up necessary compiler settings. - -### Tweaking Google Mock ### - -Most of Google Test's control macros apply to Google Mock as well. -Please see [Google Test's README][gtest_readme] for how to tweak them. - -### Upgrading from an Earlier Version ### - -We strive to keep Google Mock releases backward compatible. -Sometimes, though, we have to make some breaking changes for the -users' long-term benefits. This section describes what you'll need to -do if you are upgrading from an earlier version of Google Mock. - -#### Upgrading from 1.1.0 or Earlier #### - -You may need to explicitly enable or disable Google Test's own TR1 -tuple library. See the instructions in section "[Choosing a TR1 Tuple -Library](../googletest/#choosing-a-tr1-tuple-library)". - -#### Upgrading from 1.4.0 or Earlier #### - -On platforms where the pthread library is available, Google Test and -Google Mock use it in order to be thread-safe. For this to work, you -may need to tweak your compiler and/or linker flags. Please see the -"[Multi-threaded Tests](../googletest#multi-threaded-tests -)" section in file Google Test's README for what you may need to do. - -If you have custom matchers defined using `MatcherInterface` or -`MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, you'll need to update their definitions to -use the new matcher API ( -[monomorphic](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers), -[polymorphic](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers)). -Matchers defined using `MATCHER()` or `MATCHER_P*()` aren't affected. - -### Developing Google Mock ### - -This section discusses how to make your own changes to Google Mock. - -#### Testing Google Mock Itself #### - -To make sure your changes work as intended and don't break existing -functionality, you'll want to compile and run Google Test's own tests. -For that you'll need Autotools. First, make sure you have followed -the instructions above to configure Google Mock. -Then, create a build output directory and enter it. Next, - - ${GMOCK_DIR}/configure # try --help for more info - -Once you have successfully configured Google Mock, the build steps are -standard for GNU-style OSS packages. - - make # Standard makefile following GNU conventions - make check # Builds and runs all tests - all should pass. - -Note that when building your project against Google Mock, you are building -against Google Test as well. There is no need to configure Google Test -separately. - -#### Contributing a Patch #### - -We welcome patches. -Please read the [Developer's Guide](docs/DevGuide.md) -for how you can contribute. In particular, make sure you have signed -the Contributor License Agreement, or we won't be able to accept the -patch. - -Happy testing! - -[gtest_readme]: ../googletest/README.md "googletest" +* [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) +* [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) +* [Hamcrest](http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/) + +It is designed with C++'s specifics in mind. + +gMock: + +- Provides a declarative syntax for defining mocks. +- Can define partial (hybrid) mocks, which are a cross of real and mock + objects. +- Handles functions of arbitrary types and overloaded functions. +- Comes with a rich set of matchers for validating function arguments. +- Uses an intuitive syntax for controlling the behavior of a mock. +- Does automatic verification of expectations (no record-and-replay needed). +- Allows arbitrary (partial) ordering constraints on function calls to be + expressed. +- Lets a user extend it by defining new matchers and actions. +- Does not use exceptions. +- Is easy to learn and use. + +Details and examples can be found here: + +* [gMock for Dummies](https://google.github.io/googletest/gmock_for_dummies.html) +* [Legacy gMock FAQ](https://google.github.io/googletest/gmock_faq.html) +* [gMock Cookbook](https://google.github.io/googletest/gmock_cook_book.html) +* [gMock Cheat Sheet](https://google.github.io/googletest/gmock_cheat_sheet.html) + +Please note that code under scripts/generator/ is from the +[cppclean project](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) and under the Apache +License, which is different from GoogleMock's license. + +GoogleMock is a part of +[GoogleTest C++ testing framework](http://github.com/google/googletest/) and a +subject to the same requirements. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/build-aux/.keep b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/build-aux/.keep deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29..0000000 diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in new file mode 100644 index 0000000..23c67b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +libdir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_LIBDIR@ +includedir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_INCLUDEDIR@ + +Name: gmock +Description: GoogleMock (without main() function) +Version: @PROJECT_VERSION@ +URL: https://github.com/google/googletest +Requires: gtest = @PROJECT_VERSION@ +Libs: -L${libdir} -lgmock @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@ +Cflags: -I${includedir} @GTEST_HAS_PTHREAD_MACRO@ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in new file mode 100644 index 0000000..66ffea7 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +libdir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_LIBDIR@ +includedir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_INCLUDEDIR@ + +Name: gmock_main +Description: GoogleMock (with main() function) +Version: @PROJECT_VERSION@ +URL: https://github.com/google/googletest +Requires: gmock = @PROJECT_VERSION@ +Libs: -L${libdir} -lgmock_main @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@ +Cflags: -I${includedir} @GTEST_HAS_PTHREAD_MACRO@ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/configure.ac b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/configure.ac deleted file mode 100644 index 3b740f2..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/configure.ac +++ /dev/null @@ -1,146 +0,0 @@ -m4_include(../googletest/m4/acx_pthread.m4) - -AC_INIT([Google C++ Mocking Framework], - [1.7.0], - [googlemock@googlegroups.com], - [gmock]) - -# Provide various options to initialize the Autoconf and configure processes. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) -AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([./LICENSE]) -AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR([build-aux]) -AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([build-aux/config.h]) -AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile]) -AC_CONFIG_FILES([scripts/gmock-config], [chmod +x scripts/gmock-config]) - -# Initialize Automake with various options. We require at least v1.9, prevent -# pedantic complaints about package files, and enable various distribution -# targets. -AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.9 dist-bzip2 dist-zip foreign subdir-objects]) - -# Check for programs used in building Google Test. -AC_PROG_CC -AC_PROG_CXX -AC_LANG([C++]) -AC_PROG_LIBTOOL - -# TODO(chandlerc@google.com): Currently we aren't running the Python tests -# against the interpreter detected by AM_PATH_PYTHON, and so we condition -# HAVE_PYTHON by requiring "python" to be in the PATH, and that interpreter's -# version to be >= 2.3. This will allow the scripts to use a "/usr/bin/env" -# hashbang. -PYTHON= # We *do not* allow the user to specify a python interpreter -AC_PATH_PROG([PYTHON],[python],[:]) -AS_IF([test "$PYTHON" != ":"], - [AM_PYTHON_CHECK_VERSION([$PYTHON],[2.3],[:],[PYTHON=":"])]) -AM_CONDITIONAL([HAVE_PYTHON],[test "$PYTHON" != ":"]) - -# TODO(chandlerc@google.com) Check for the necessary system headers. - -# Configure pthreads. -AC_ARG_WITH([pthreads], - [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-pthreads], - [use pthreads (default is yes)])], - [with_pthreads=$withval], - [with_pthreads=check]) - -have_pthreads=no -AS_IF([test "x$with_pthreads" != "xno"], - [ACX_PTHREAD( - [], - [AS_IF([test "x$with_pthreads" != "xcheck"], - [AC_MSG_FAILURE( - [--with-pthreads was specified, but unable to be used])])]) - have_pthreads="$acx_pthread_ok"]) -AM_CONDITIONAL([HAVE_PTHREADS],[test "x$have_pthreads" == "xyes"]) -AC_SUBST(PTHREAD_CFLAGS) -AC_SUBST(PTHREAD_LIBS) - -# GoogleMock currently has hard dependencies upon GoogleTest above and beyond -# running its own test suite, so we both provide our own version in -# a subdirectory and provide some logic to use a custom version or a system -# installed version. -AC_ARG_WITH([gtest], - [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-gtest], - [Specifies how to find the gtest package. If no - arguments are given, the default behavior, a - system installed gtest will be used if present, - and an internal version built otherwise. If a - path is provided, the gtest built or installed at - that prefix will be used.])], - [], - [with_gtest=yes]) -AC_ARG_ENABLE([external-gtest], - [AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-external-gtest], - [Disables any detection or use of a system - installed or user provided gtest. Any option to - '--with-gtest' is ignored. (Default is enabled.)]) - ], [], [enable_external_gtest=yes]) -AS_IF([test "x$with_gtest" == "xno"], - [AC_MSG_ERROR([dnl -Support for GoogleTest was explicitly disabled. Currently GoogleMock has a hard -dependency upon GoogleTest to build, please provide a version, or allow -GoogleMock to use any installed version and fall back upon its internal -version.])]) - -# Setup various GTEST variables. TODO(chandlerc@google.com): When these are -# used below, they should be used such that any pre-existing values always -# trump values we set them to, so that they can be used to selectively override -# details of the detection process. -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_CONFIG], - [The exact path of Google Test's 'gtest-config' script.]) -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_CPPFLAGS], - [C-like preprocessor flags for Google Test.]) -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_CXXFLAGS], - [C++ compile flags for Google Test.]) -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_LDFLAGS], - [Linker path and option flags for Google Test.]) -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_LIBS], - [Library linking flags for Google Test.]) -AC_ARG_VAR([GTEST_VERSION], - [The version of Google Test available.]) -HAVE_BUILT_GTEST="no" - -GTEST_MIN_VERSION="1.7.0" - -AS_IF([test "x${enable_external_gtest}" = "xyes"], - [# Begin filling in variables as we are able. - AS_IF([test "x${with_gtest}" != "xyes"], - [AS_IF([test -x "${with_gtest}/scripts/gtest-config"], - [GTEST_CONFIG="${with_gtest}/scripts/gtest-config"], - [GTEST_CONFIG="${with_gtest}/bin/gtest-config"]) - AS_IF([test -x "${GTEST_CONFIG}"], [], - [AC_MSG_ERROR([dnl -Unable to locate either a built or installed Google Test at '${with_gtest}'.]) - ])]) - - AS_IF([test -x "${GTEST_CONFIG}"], [], - [AC_PATH_PROG([GTEST_CONFIG], [gtest-config])]) - AS_IF([test -x "${GTEST_CONFIG}"], - [AC_MSG_CHECKING([for Google Test version >= ${GTEST_MIN_VERSION}]) - AS_IF([${GTEST_CONFIG} --min-version=${GTEST_MIN_VERSION}], - [AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) - HAVE_BUILT_GTEST="yes"], - [AC_MSG_RESULT([no])])])]) - -AS_IF([test "x${HAVE_BUILT_GTEST}" = "xyes"], - [GTEST_CPPFLAGS=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --cppflags` - GTEST_CXXFLAGS=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --cxxflags` - GTEST_LDFLAGS=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --ldflags` - GTEST_LIBS=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --libs` - GTEST_VERSION=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --version`], - [AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS([../googletest]) - # GTEST_CONFIG needs to be executable both in a Makefile environmont and - # in a shell script environment, so resolve an absolute path for it here. - GTEST_CONFIG="`pwd -P`/../googletest/scripts/gtest-config" - GTEST_CPPFLAGS='-I$(top_srcdir)/../googletest/include' - GTEST_CXXFLAGS='-g' - GTEST_LDFLAGS='' - GTEST_LIBS='$(top_builddir)/../googletest/lib/libgtest.la' - GTEST_VERSION="${GTEST_MIN_VERSION}"]) - -# TODO(chandlerc@google.com) Check the types, structures, and other compiler -# and architecture characteristics. - -# Output the generated files. No further autoconf macros may be used. -AC_OUTPUT diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md deleted file mode 100644 index ef4451b..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,562 +0,0 @@ - - -# Defining a Mock Class # - -## Mocking a Normal Class ## - -Given -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual ~Foo(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0; - virtual string Describe(int type) = 0; - virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count)); -}; -``` - -To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls, -or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures: -``` -NiceMock nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -StrictMock strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -``` - -## Mocking a Class Template ## - -To mock -``` -template -class StackInterface { - public: - ... - virtual ~StackInterface(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: -``` -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - public: - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ## - -If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you -can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros -described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling -convention as the first argument to the macro. For example, -``` - MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y)); -``` -where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `` on Windows. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # - -The typical flow is: - 1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted. - 1. Create the mock objects. - 1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects. - 1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?). - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](../../googletest/) assertions. - 1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here is an example: -``` -using ::testing::Return; // #1 - -TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) { - MockFoo foo; // #2 - - ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3 - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - // ... other default actions ... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4 - .Times(3) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5")); - // ... other expectations ... - - EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5 -} // #6 -``` - -# Setting Default Actions # - -Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that -returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. - -To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally: -``` -using ::testing::DefaultValue; - -// Sets the default value to be returned. T must be CopyConstructible. -DefaultValue::Set(value); -// Sets a factory. Will be invoked on demand. T must be MoveConstructible. -// T MakeT(); -DefaultValue::SetFactory(&MakeT); -// ... use the mocks ... -// Resets the default value. -DefaultValue::Clear(); -``` - -To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`: -``` -ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .WillByDefault(action); -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be -called? What will it do?): -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .Times(cardinality) ? - .InSequence(sequences) * - .After(expectations) * - .WillOnce(action) * - .WillRepeatedly(action) ? - .RetiresOnSaturation(); ? -``` - -If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be: - - * `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`; - * `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or - * `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0. - -A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time. - -# Matchers # - -A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside -`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value -directly: - -| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. | -|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------| -| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. | - -Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are -divided into several categories: - -## Wildcard ## -|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.| -|:--|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`A()` or `An()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. | - -## Generic Comparison ## - -|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`| -|:---------------------|:------------------| -|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`| -|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` | -|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`| -|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` | -|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`| -|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).| -|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).| -|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.| -|`TypedEq(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.| - -Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's -modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` -doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`, -e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure -`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your -matcher will be changed. - -## Floating-Point Matchers ## - -|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. | - -The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in -[Google Test](../../googletest/)). They -automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute -value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to -the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to -return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as -equal, which is often what a user wants. - -|`DoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` |`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | - -## String Matchers ## - -The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object: - -|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.| -|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. | -|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. | -|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.| -|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. | -|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. | -|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.| -|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. | -|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. | - -`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` use the regular expression -syntax defined -[here](../../googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md#regular-expression-syntax). -`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide -strings as well. - -## Container Matchers ## - -Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line, -match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use: - -| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. | -|:-------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where _every_ element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. | -| `ElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `ElementsAreArray(array)`, or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, or C-style array. | -| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty container (`container.empty()`). | -| `Pointwise(m, container)` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. See more detail below. | -| `SizeIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose size matches `m`. E.g. `SizeIs(2)` or `SizeIs(Lt(2))`. | -| `UnorderedElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, and under some permutation each element matches an `ei` (for a different `i`), which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. | -| `UnorderedElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array)`, or `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `UnorderedElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, or C-style array. | -| `WhenSorted(m)` | When `argument` is sorted using the `<` operator, it matches container matcher `m`. E.g. `WhenSorted(UnorderedElementsAre(1, 2, 3))` verifies that `argument` contains elements `1`, `2`, and `3`, ignoring order. | -| `WhenSortedBy(comparator, m)` | The same as `WhenSorted(m)`, except that the given comparator instead of `<` is used to sort `argument`. E.g. `WhenSortedBy(std::greater(), ElementsAre(3, 2, 1))`. | - -Notes: - - * These matchers can also match: - 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and - 1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)). - * The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays). - * `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` should be a matcher for `::testing::tuple` where `T` and `U` are the element type of the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example, to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==` but has an `Equals()` method, one might write: - -``` -using ::testing::get; -MATCHER(FooEq, "") { - return get<0>(arg).Equals(get<1>(arg)); -} -... -EXPECT_THAT(actual_foos, Pointwise(FooEq(), expected_foos)); -``` - -## Member Matchers ## - -|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| -|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.| -|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. | -|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| - -## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ## - -|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.| -|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Pointer Matchers ## - -|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.| -|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`WhenDynamicCastTo(m)`| when `argument` is passed through `dynamic_cast()`, it matches matcher `m`. | - -## Multiargument Matchers ## - -Technically, all matchers match a _single_ value. A "multi-argument" -matcher is just one that matches a _tuple_. The following matchers can -be used to match a tuple `(x, y)`: - -|`Eq()`|`x == y`| -|:-----|:-------| -|`Ge()`|`x >= y`| -|`Gt()`|`x > y` | -|`Le()`|`x <= y`| -|`Lt()`|`x < y` | -|`Ne()`|`x != y`| - -You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments -(or reorder them) to participate in the matching: - -|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.| -|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Args(m)`|The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`.| - -## Composite Matchers ## - -You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers: - -|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------| -|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -## Adapters for Matchers ## - -|`MatcherCast(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher`.| -|:------------------|:--------------------------------------| -|`SafeMatcherCast(m)`| [safely casts](CookBook.md#casting-matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | -|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.| - -## Matchers as Predicates ## - -|`Matches(m)(value)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor.| -|:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. | -|`Value(value, m)` |evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. | - -## Defining Matchers ## - -| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. | -|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------| -| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. | -| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " between " + PrintToString(a) + " and " + PrintToString(b)) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. | - -**Notes:** - - 1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - 1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). - 1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string. - -## Matchers as Test Assertions ## - -|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](../../googletest/docs/Primer.md#assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.| -|:---------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -# Actions # - -**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked. - -## Returning a Value ## - -|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.| -|:---------|:----------------------------------| -|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type at the time the expectation is set, not when the action is executed.| -|`ReturnArg()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`ReturnNew(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.| -|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. | -|`ReturnPointee(ptr)`|Return the value pointed to by `ptr`.| -|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. | -|`ReturnRefOfCopy(value)`|Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action.| - -## Side Effects ## - -|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.| -|:-------------------------|:--------------------------| -| `DeleteArg()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. | -| `SaveArg(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SaveArgPointee(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SetArgReferee(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | -|`SetArgPointee(value)` |Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`SetArgumentPointee(value)`|Same as `SetArgPointee(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0.| -|`SetArrayArgument(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.| -|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.| -|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.| - -## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ## - -|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.| -|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. | -|`InvokeArgument(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.| - -The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value -of the action. - -When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`: -``` - double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); } - ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance)); -``` - -In `InvokeArgument(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example, -``` - InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo)) -``` -calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference. - -## Default Action ## - -|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).| -|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------| - -**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error. - -## Composite Actions ## - -|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. | -|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. | -|`WithArg(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithArgs(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. | - -## Defining Actions ## - -| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. | -|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. | -| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. | - -The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - -# Cardinalities # - -These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called: - -|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.| -|:------------|:----------------------------------------------| -|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. | -|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. | -|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.| -|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.| - -# Expectation Order # - -By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some -or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two -ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or -together. - -## The After Clause ## - -``` -using ::testing::Expectation; -... -Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX()); -Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY()); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(init_x, init_y); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and -`InitY()` have been called. - -If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you -write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them: - -``` -using ::testing::ExpectationSet; -... -ExpectationSet all_inits; -for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) { - all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i)); -} -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(all_inits); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been -initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized -before the others). - -Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't -affect the meaning of the `.After()`. - -## Sequences ## - -When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to -specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given -each expectation in the chain a different name. All expected
-calls in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -specified. - -``` -using ::testing::Sequence; -Sequence s1, s2; -... -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset()) - .InSequence(s1, s2) - .WillOnce(Return(true)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize()) - .InSequence(s1) - .WillOnce(Return(1)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A())) - .InSequence(s2) - .WillOnce(Return("dummy")); -``` -says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_ -`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order. - -To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently: -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -{ - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; -} -``` -says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in -strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.) - -# Verifying and Resetting a Mock # - -Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier: -``` -using ::testing::Mock; -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj); -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL(); -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj); -``` - -You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't -need to be verified: -``` -Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj); -``` - -# Mock Classes # - -Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template -``` -class MockFunction { - public: - MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An)); -}; -``` -See this [recipe](CookBook.md#using-check-points) for one application of it. - -# Flags # - -| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. | -|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------| -| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. | diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md deleted file mode 100644 index c215b55..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3675 +0,0 @@ - - -You can find recipes for using Google Mock here. If you haven't yet, -please read the [ForDummies](ForDummies.md) document first to make sure you understand -the basics. - -**Note:** Google Mock lives in the `testing` name space. For -readability, it is recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in -your file before using the name `Foo` defined by Google Mock. We omit -such `using` statements in this page for brevity, but you should do it -in your own code. - -# Creating Mock Classes # - -## Mocking Private or Protected Methods ## - -You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD*`) in a -`public:` section of the mock class, regardless of the method being -mocked being `public`, `protected`, or `private` in the base class. -This allows `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function -from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change -the access level of a virtual function in the base class.) Example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - ... - virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0; - - protected: - virtual void Resume(); - - private: - virtual int GetTimeOut(); -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Transform, bool(Gadget* g)); - - // The following must be in the public section, even though the - // methods are protected or private in the base class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Resume, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(GetTimeOut, int()); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Overloaded Methods ## - -You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required: - -``` -class Foo { - ... - - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo. - virtual ~Foo(); - - // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments. - virtual int Add(Element x); - virtual int Add(int times, Element x); - - // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object. - virtual Bar& GetBar(); - virtual const Bar& GetBar() const; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Add, int(int times, Element x); - - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -``` - -**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the -compiler will give you a warning about some methods in the base class -being hidden. To fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - using Foo::Add; - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x); - ... -}; -``` - -## Mocking Class Templates ## - -To mock a class template, append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: - -``` -template -class StackInterface { - ... - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface. - virtual ~StackInterface(); - - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; - -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Nonvirtual Methods ## - -Google Mock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in what we call _hi-perf -dependency injection_. - -In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real -class, your mock class will be _unrelated_ to the real class, but -contain methods with the same signatures. The syntax for mocking -non-virtual methods is the _same_ as mocking virtual methods: - -``` -// A simple packet stream class. None of its members is virtual. -class ConcretePacketStream { - public: - void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet); - const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const; - size_t NumberOfPackets() const; - ... -}; - -// A mock packet stream class. It inherits from no other, but defines -// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets(). -class MockPacketStream { - public: - MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(GetPacket, const Packet*(size_t packet_number)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(NumberOfPackets, size_t()); - ... -}; -``` - -Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the -real class. That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it. - -Next, you need a way to say that you want to use -`ConcretePacketStream` in production code, and use `MockPacketStream` -in tests. Since the functions are not virtual and the two classes are -unrelated, you must specify your choice at _compile time_ (as opposed -to run time). - -One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet -stream. More specifically, you will give your code a template type -argument for the type of the packet stream. In production, you will -instantiate your template with `ConcretePacketStream` as the type -argument. In tests, you will instantiate the same template with -`MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write: - -``` -template -void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... } - -template -class PacketReader { - public: - void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num); -}; -``` - -Then you can use `CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in production code, and use -`CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in tests. - -``` - MockPacketStream mock_stream; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...; - .. set more expectations on mock_stream ... - PacketReader reader(&mock_stream); - ... exercise reader ... -``` - -## Mocking Free Functions ## - -It's possible to use Google Mock to mock a free function (i.e. a -C-style function or a static method). You just need to rewrite your -code to use an interface (abstract class). - -Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, -introduce an interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls -the free function: - -``` -class FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0; -}; - -class File : public FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) { - return OpenFile(path, mode); - } -}; -``` - -Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's -easy to mock out the function. - -This may seem much hassle, but in practice you often have multiple -related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the -per-function syntactic overhead will be much lower. - -If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by -virtual functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can -combine this with the recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods.md). - -## The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy ## - -If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, Google Mock -will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is: - - * New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called. - * However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, he can add an `EXPECT_CALL()` to suppress the warning. - -However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call" -warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all -of them as errors. Google Mock lets you make the decision on a -per-mock-object basis. - -Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`: - -``` -TEST(...) { - MockFoo mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, it will be -reported by Google Mock as a warning. However, if you rewrite your -test to use `NiceMock` instead, the warning will be gone, -resulting in a cleaner test output: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -`NiceMock` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used -wherever `MockFoo` is accepted. - -It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as -`NiceMock` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo(5, "hi"); // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi"). - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all -uninteresting calls failures: - -``` -using ::testing::StrictMock; - -TEST(...) { - StrictMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... - - // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() - // is called. -} -``` - -There are some caveats though (I don't like them just as much as the -next guy, but sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations): - - 1. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only work for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD*` family of macros **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. `NiceMock >`) is **not** supported. - 1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml). - 1. During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is _not_ nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.) - -Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you should't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock, however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the last resort. - -## Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code ## - -Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly -uninteresting. For example, - -``` -class LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, - const struct tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0; -}; -``` - -This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (let's -say that the `message` argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock -it as is, using the mock will be awkward. If, however, we try to -simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all clients depending on -it, which is often infeasible. - -The trick is to re-dispatch the method in the mock class: - -``` -class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) { - // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and - // log message. - Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len)); - } - - // Implements the mock method: - // - // void Log(LogSeverity severity, - // const string& file_path, - // const string& message); - MOCK_METHOD3(Log, void(LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path, - const string& message)); -}; -``` - -By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make -the mock class much more user-friendly. - -## Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes ## - -Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement -interfaces. In order to test your code that uses such a class (let's -call it `Concrete`), you may be tempted to make the methods of -`Concrete` virtual and then mock it. - -Try not to do that. - -Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an -extension point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This -weakens your control on the class because now it's harder to maintain -the class' invariants. You should make a function virtual only when -there is a valid reason for a subclass to override it. - -Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight -coupling between the class and the tests - any small change in the -class may invalidate your tests and make test maintenance a pain. - -To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding -to interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code -would define an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that -interface as an adaptor on top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily -mock that interface to observe how your code is doing. - -This technique incurs some overhead: - - * You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem). - * There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn. - -However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better -testability: - - * `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way, which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more productive. - * If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be insulated from this change. - -Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they -will end up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally -understandable. However, there are two reasons why it may not be the -case: - - * Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the same code. - * If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it, just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib` sub-directory) and let many projects use it. - -You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular -problem, but I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been -practicing this for a long time and it's a proven effective technique -applicable in a wide variety of situations. :-) - -## Delegating Calls to a Fake ## - -Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an -interface. For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo() {} - virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0; - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0; -}; - -class FakeFoo : public Foo { - public: - virtual char DoThis(int n) { - return (n > 0) ? '+' : - (n < 0) ? '-' : '0'; - } - - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) { - *p = strlen(s); - } -}; -``` - -Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations -on it. However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default -behavior, as duplicating it in the mock object is, well, a lot of -work. - -When you define the mock class using Google Mock, you can have it -delegate its default action to a fake class you already have, using -this pattern: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Normal mock method definitions using Google Mock. - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, char(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThat, void(const char* s, int* p)); - - // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object. - // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements. - void DelegateToFake() { - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_, _)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThat)); - } - private: - FakeFoo fake_; // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock. -}; -``` - -With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember -that if you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or -`EXPECT_CALL()`, the fake will be called upon to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) { - MockFoo foo; - foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation. - - // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any. - - // No action specified, meaning to use the default action. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _)); - - int n = 0; - EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked. - foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked. - EXPECT_EQ(2, n); -} -``` - -**Some tips:** - - * If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`. - * In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake implementation you intend to use. - * The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`), see the "Selecting Between Overloaded Functions" section on this page; to disambiguate a fake function (the one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter, you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)` (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.). - * Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong. Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up. Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an intermediate step when you are refactoring your code. - -Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on -why it may be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for -low-level system operations. In particular, it does file and I/O -operations. And suppose you want to test how your code uses `System` -to do I/O, and you just want the file operations to work normally. If -you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll have to provide a fake -implementation for the file operation part, which suggests that -`System` is taking on too many roles. - -Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface -and split `System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock -`IOOps` without mocking `FileOps`. - -## Delegating Calls to a Real Object ## - -When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes -their behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This -difference could be either intentional (as in simulating an error such -that you can test the error handling code) or unintentional. If your -mocks have different behaviors than the real objects by mistake, you -could end up with code that passes the tests but fails in production. - -You can use the _delegating-to-real_ technique to ensure that your -mock has the same behavior as the real object while retaining the -ability to validate calls. This technique is very similar to the -delegating-to-fake technique, the difference being that we use a real -object instead of a fake. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AtLeast; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MockFoo() { - // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object. - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis()) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThat)); - ... - } - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, ...); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, ...); - ... - private: - Foo real_; -}; -... - - MockFoo mock; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis()) - .Times(3); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi")) - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - ... use mock in test ... -``` - -With this, Google Mock will verify that your code made the right calls -(with the right arguments, in the right order, called the right number -of times, etc), and a real object will answer the calls (so the -behavior will be the same as in production). This gives you the best -of both worlds. - -## Delegating Calls to a Parent Class ## - -Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure -virtual. In reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method -that is not pure (i.e, it already has an implementation). For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo(); - - virtual void Pure(int n) = 0; - virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... } -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); -}; -``` - -Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of -`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub -action, or perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all -(but it would be oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class -whenever you don't need to mock one of its methods). - -The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the -real methods in the base class: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); - - // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo. - int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); } -}; -``` - -Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`: - -``` -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -(Why don't we just write `Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concrete)`? If you do -that, `MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite -recursion) since `Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ -works.) - -# Using Matchers # - -## Matching Argument Values Exactly ## - -You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)) - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar)); -``` - -## Using Simple Matchers ## - -You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5))) // The argument must be >= 5. - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull())); - // The second argument must not be NULL. -``` - -A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::NotNull; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull())); -``` - -## Combining Matchers ## - -You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`, -`AnyOf()`, and `Not()`: - -``` -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::HasSubstr; -using ::testing::Ne; -using ::testing::Not; -... - // The argument must be > 5 and != 10. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5), - Ne(10)))); - - // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah". - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")), - NULL)); -``` - -## Casting Matchers ## - -Google Mock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler -can catch your mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for -example, if you use `Eq(5)` to match a `string` argument). Good for -you! - -Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler -to give you some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for -`long` and the argument you want to match is `int`. While the two -types aren't exactly the same, there is nothing really wrong with -using a `Matcher` to match an `int` - after all, we can first -convert the `int` argument to a `long` before giving it to the -matcher. - -To support this need, Google Mock gives you the -`SafeMatcherCast(m)` function. It casts a matcher `m` to type -`Matcher`. To ensure safety, Google Mock checks that (let `U` be the -type `m` accepts): - - 1. Type `T` can be implicitly cast to type `U`; - 1. When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`); and - 1. When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value). - -The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met. - -Here's one example: - -``` -using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; - -// A base class and a child class. -class Base { ... }; -class Derived : public Base { ... }; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, void(Derived* derived)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - // m is a Matcher we got from somewhere. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast(m))); -``` - -If you find `SafeMatcherCast(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar -function `MatcherCast(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works -as long as you can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`. - -`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system -(`static_cast` isn't always safe as it could throw away information, -for example), so be careful not to misuse/abuse it. - -## Selecting Between Overloaded Functions ## - -If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may -need some help on which overloaded version it is. - -To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, -use the `Const()` argument wrapper. - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar1, bar2; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) // The non-const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1)); - EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar()) // The const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2)); -``` - -(`Const()` is defined by Google Mock and returns a `const` reference -to its argument.) - -To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments -but different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type -of a matcher, either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher()`, or -using a matcher whose type is fixed (`TypedEq`, `An()`, -etc): - -``` -using ::testing::An; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::TypedEq; - -class MockPrinter : public Printer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(char c)); -}; - -TEST(PrinterTest, Print) { - MockPrinter printer; - - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An())); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher(Lt(5)))); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq('a'))); // void Print(char); - - printer.Print(3); - printer.Print(6); - printer.Print('a'); -} -``` - -## Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments ## - -When a mock method is called, the _last_ matching expectation that's -still active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you -can make a method do different things depending on its argument values -like this: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - // The default case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('b')); - - // The more specific case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5))) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('a')); -``` - -Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will -be returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned. - -## Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole ## - -Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For -example, we may want to say that the first argument must be less than -the second argument. The `With()` clause allows us to match -all arguments of a mock function as a whole. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Ne; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _)) - .With(Lt()); -``` - -says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be -less than the second argument. - -The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type -`Matcher< ::testing::tuple >`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the -types of the function arguments. - -You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The -two forms are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable -than `.With(Lt())`. - -You can use `Args(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments -(as a tuple) against `m`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Args; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah(_, _, _)) - .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt()))); -``` - -says that `Blah()` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where -`x < y < z`. - -As a convenience and example, Google Mock provides some matchers for -2-tuples, including the `Lt()` matcher above. See the [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md) for -the complete list. - -Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own -(e.g. `.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be -written to take a `::testing::tuple` as its argument; Google Mock will pass the `n` selected arguments as _one_ single tuple to the predicate. - -## Using Matchers as Predicates ## - -Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also -knows how to describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates -as arguments (e.g. those defined in STL's `` header), and -it would be a shame if Google Mock matchers are not allowed to -participate. - -Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is -expected by wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example, - -``` -#include -#include - -std::vector v; -... -// How many elements in v are >= 10? -const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10))); -``` - -Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using -Google Mock, this gives you a way to conveniently construct composite -predicates (doing the same using STL's `` header is just -painful). For example, here's a predicate that's satisfied by any -number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50: - -``` -Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50))) -``` - -## Using Matchers in Google Test Assertions ## - -Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe -themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in -[Google Test](../../googletest/) assertions. It's -called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`: - -``` - ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher); // Asserts that value matches matcher. - EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher); // The non-fatal version. -``` - -For example, in a Google Test test you can write: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Le; -using ::testing::MatchesRegex; -using ::testing::StartsWith; -... - - EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello")); - EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+")); - ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10))); -``` - -which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and -`Baz()`, and verifies that: - - * `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`. - * `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`. - * `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10]. - -The nice thing about these macros is that _they read like -English_. They generate informative messages too. For example, if the -first `EXPECT_THAT()` above fails, the message will be something like: - -``` -Value of: Foo() - Actual: "Hi, world!" -Expected: starts with "Hello" -``` - -**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was stolen from the -[Hamcrest](https://github.com/hamcrest/) project, which adds -`assertThat()` to JUnit. - -## Using Predicates as Matchers ## - -Google Mock provides a built-in set of matchers. In case you find them -lacking, you can use an arbitray unary predicate function or functor -as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type -you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` -function, for example: - -``` -using ::testing::Truly; - -int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; } -... - - // Bar() must be called with an even number. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven))); -``` - -Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return -`bool`. It works as long as the return value can be used as the -condition in statement `if (condition) ...`. - -## Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable ## - -When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, Google Mock saves -away a copy of `bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, Google Mock -compares the argument to `Foo()` with the saved copy of `bar`. This -way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being modified or destroyed -after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true when you use -matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on. - -But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You -could define your own matcher function and use it with `Truly()`, as -the previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get -away from it if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after -the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. Just tell Google Mock that it should -save a reference to `bar`, instead of a copy of it. Here's how: - -``` -using ::testing::Eq; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar)))); - - // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar)))); -``` - -Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the -`EXPECT_CALL()`, or the result is undefined. - -## Validating a Member of an Object ## - -Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When -matching the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object -against a fixed object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, -you may need to validate a certain member variable or the result of a -certain getter method of the object. You can do this with `Field()` -and `Property()`. More specifically, - -``` -Field(&Foo::bar, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable -satisfies matcher `m`. - -``` -Property(&Foo::baz, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns -a value that satisfies matcher `m`. - -For example: - -> | `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. | -|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------| -> | `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. | - -Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no -argument and be declared as `const`. - -BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to -objects. For instance, - -``` -Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) -``` - -matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, -the match will always fail regardless of the inner matcher. - -What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? -Remember that there is `AllOf()`. - -## Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument ## - -C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers -like `IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a -pointer, but what if you want to make sure the value _pointed to_ by -the pointer, instead of the pointer itself, has a certain property? -Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)` matcher. - -`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer iff `m` matches the value the pointer -points to. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Pointee; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3)))); -``` - -expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value -greater than or equal to 3. - -One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as -a match failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of - -``` - AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m)) -``` - -without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test. - -Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers -**and** smart pointers (`linked_ptr`, `shared_ptr`, `scoped_ptr`, and -etc)? - -What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use -nested `Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example, -`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer -that points to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...). - -## Testing a Certain Property of an Object ## - -Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain -property, but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want -good error messages, you should define a matcher. If you want to do it -quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function. - -Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, -which has an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you -want to constrain that the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` -value is a given number. Here's how you can define a matcher to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum) - : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_; - } - private: - const int expected_sum_; -}; - -inline Matcher BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) { - return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum)); -} - -... - - EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...; -``` - -## Matching Containers ## - -Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to -a mock function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL -containers support the `==` operator, you can write -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. - -Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the -first element must be an exact match, but the second element can be -any positive number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often -have a small number of elements, and having to define the expected -container out-of-line is a bit of a hassle. - -You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in -such cases: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ElementsAre; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which -must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -If you instead write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -It means that the container must have 4 elements, which under some -permutation must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -`ElementsAre()` and `UnorderedElementsAre()` are overloaded to take 0 -to 10 arguments. If more are needed, you can place them in a C-style -array and use `ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` -instead: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - - // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values. - const int expected_vector1[] = { 1, 5, 2, 4, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1))); - - // Or, an array of element matchers. - Matcher expected_vector2 = { 1, Gt(2), _, 3, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2))); -``` - -In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the -array size cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give -`ElementsAreArray()` an additional argument to specify the array size: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count]; - ... fill expected_vector3 with values ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count))); -``` - -**Tips:** - - * `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match _any_ container that implements the STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above pattern. - * You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional) containers. - * If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`. - * The order of elements _matters_ for `ElementsAre*()`. Therefore don't use it with containers whose element order is undefined (e.g. `hash_map`). - -## Sharing Matchers ## - -Under the hood, a Google Mock matcher object consists of a pointer to -a ref-counted implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and -very efficient, as only the pointer is copied. When the last matcher -that references the implementation object dies, the implementation -object will be deleted. - -Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again -and again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a -matcher variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example, - -``` - Matcher in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10)); - ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ... -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -## Knowing When to Expect ## - -`ON_CALL` is likely the single most under-utilized construct in Google Mock. - -There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object: `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when a mock method is called, but _doesn't imply any expectation on the method being called._ `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an expectation that _the method will be called with the given arguments, for the given number of times_ (and _in the given order_ when you specify the order too). - -Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every `EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having more constraints than necessary is _baaad_ - even worse than not having enough constraints. - -This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests? - -The answer, lies in _what_ a test should verify. **A good test verifies the contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed. - -Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test. In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's wrong just from the test log itself. - -So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier to maintain when you do need to maintain them). - -If you are bothered by the "Uninteresting mock function call" message printed when a mock method without an `EXPECT_CALL` is called, you may use a `NiceMock` instead to suppress all such messages for the mock object, or suppress the message for specific methods by adding `EXPECT_CALL(...).Times(AnyNumber())`. DO NOT suppress it by blindly adding an `EXPECT_CALL(...)`, or you'll have a test that's a pain to maintain. - -## Ignoring Uninteresting Calls ## - -If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't -say anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, -Google Mock will perform its default action to allow the test program -to continue. If you are not happy with the default action taken by -Google Mock, you can override it using `DefaultValue::Set()` -(described later in this document) or `ON_CALL()`. - -Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock -method (via `EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some -expectation. If this function is called but the arguments don't match -any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement, it will be an error. - -## Disallowing Unexpected Calls ## - -If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just -list all the expected calls: - -``` -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10))) - .Times(AnyNumber()); -``` - -A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements will be an error. - -## Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls ## - -_Uninteresting_ calls and _unexpected_ calls are different concepts in Google Mock. _Very_ different. - -A call `x.Y(...)` is **uninteresting** if there's _not even a single_ `EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))` set. In other words, the test isn't interested in the `x.Y()` method at all, as evident in that the test doesn't care to say anything about it. - -A call `x.Y(...)` is **unexpected** if there are some `EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))s` set, but none of them matches the call. Put another way, the test is interested in the `x.Y()` method (therefore it _explicitly_ sets some `EXPECT_CALL` to verify how it's called); however, the verification fails as the test doesn't expect this particular call to happen. - -**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave the way the test expects it to behave. - -**By default, an uninteresting call is not an error,** as it violates no constraint specified by the test. (Google Mock's philosophy is that saying nothing means there is no constraint.) However, it leads to a warning, as it _might_ indicate a problem (e.g. the test author might have forgotten to specify a constraint). - -In Google Mock, `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` can be used to make a mock class "nice" or "strict". How does this affect uninteresting calls and unexpected calls? - -A **nice mock** suppresses uninteresting call warnings. It is less chatty than the default mock, but otherwise is the same. If a test fails with a default mock, it will also fail using a nice mock instead. And vice versa. Don't expect making a mock nice to change the test's result. - -A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a mock strict may change the test's result. - -Let's look at an example: - -``` -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_registry; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com")) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page")); - - // Use mock_registry in code under test. - ... &mock_registry ... -} -``` - -The sole `EXPECT_CALL` here says that all calls to `GetDomainOwner()` must have `"google.com"` as the argument. If `GetDomainOwner("yahoo.com")` is called, it will be an unexpected call, and thus an error. Having a nice mock doesn't change the severity of an unexpected call. - -So how do we tell Google Mock that `GetDomainOwner()` can be called with some other arguments as well? The standard technique is to add a "catch all" `EXPECT_CALL`: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner(_)) - .Times(AnyNumber()); // catches all other calls to this method. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com")) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page")); -``` - -Remember that `_` is the wildcard matcher that matches anything. With this, if `GetDomainOwner("google.com")` is called, it will do what the second `EXPECT_CALL` says; if it is called with a different argument, it will do what the first `EXPECT_CALL` says. - -Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALLs` is important, as a newer `EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one. - -For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read ["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#the-nice-the-strict-and-the-naggy). - -## Expecting Ordered Calls ## - -Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier takes precedence -when Google Mock tries to match a function call with an expectation, -by default calls don't have to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements are written. For example, if the arguments match the -matchers in the third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in the first two, -then the third expectation will be used. - -If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the -expectations, put the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you -define a variable of type `InSequence`: - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::InSequence; - - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_)) - .Times(2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6)); - } -``` - -In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two -calls to `bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are -in turn followed by a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred -out-of-order, Google Mock will report an error. - -## Expecting Partially Ordered Calls ## - -Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can -lead to brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring -before both `B` and `C`, but aren't interested in the relative order -of `B` and `C`. In this case, the test should reflect our real intent, -instead of being overly constraining. - -Google Mock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic -graph) on the calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the -[After](CheatSheet.md#the-after-clause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. - -Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the -`InSequence` class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less -flexible than `After()`, but more convenient when you have long chains -of sequential calls, as it doesn't require you to come up with -different names for the expectations in the chains. Here's how it -works: - -If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an -edge from node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get -a DAG. We use the term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this -DAG. Now, if we decompose the DAG into sequences, we just need to know -which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()` belongs to in order to be able to -reconstruct the orginal DAG. - -So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two -things: first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each -`EXPECT_CALL()` say which `Sequence` objects it is part -of. Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -written. For example, - -``` - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, A()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, B()) - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, C()) - .InSequence(s2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, D()) - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> -C -> D`): - -``` - +---> B - | - A ---| - | - +---> C ---> D -``` - -This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before -D. There's no restriction about the order other than these. - -## Controlling When an Expectation Retires ## - -When a mock method is called, Google Mock only consider expectations -that are still active. An expectation is active when created, and -becomes inactive (aka _retires_) when a call that has to occur later -has occurred. For example, in - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty.")) // #2 - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found.")) // #3 - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning -`"File too large."` is logged after this, it will be an error. - -Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's -saturated. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")); // #2 -``` - -says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File -too large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will -match again and result in an upper-bound-violated error. - -If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as -soon as it becomes saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #2 - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the -message `"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second -will match #1 - there will be no error. - -# Using Actions # - -## Returning References from Mock Methods ## - -If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use -`ReturnRef()` instead of `Return()` to return a result: - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar)); -``` - -## Returning Live Values from Mock Methods ## - -The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is -_created_, and always returns the same value whenever it's -executed. Sometimes you may want to instead return the _live_ value of -`x` (i.e. its value at the time when the action is _executed_.). - -If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using -`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References -from Mock Methods"). However, Google Mock doesn't let you use -`ReturnRef()` in a mock function whose return type is not a reference, -as doing that usually indicates a user error. So, what shall you do? - -You may be tempted to try `ByRef()`: - -``` -using testing::ByRef; -using testing::Return; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetValue, int()); -}; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x))); - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); -``` - -Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error: - -``` -Value of: foo.GetValue() - Actual: 0 -Expected: 42 -``` - -The reason is that `Return(value)` converts `value` to the actual -return type of the mock function at the time when the action is -_created_, not when it is _executed_. (This behavior was chosen for -the action to be safe when `value` is a proxy object that references -some temporary objects.) As a result, `ByRef(x)` is converted to an -`int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when the expectation is set, -and `Return(ByRef(x))` will always return 0. - -`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem -specifically. It returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time -the action is _executed_: - -``` -using testing::ReturnPointee; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x)); // Note the & here. - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); // This will succeed now. -``` - -## Combining Actions ## - -Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's -fine. `DoAll()` allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only -the return value of the last action in the sequence will be used. - -``` -using ::testing::DoAll; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(int n)); -}; -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1, - action_2, - ... - action_n)); -``` - -## Mocking Side Effects ## - -Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but -via side effects. For example, it may change some global state or -modify an output argument. To mock side effects, in general you can -define your own action by implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`. - -If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in -`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient: - -``` -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(bool mutate, int* value)); - ... -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _)) - .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5)); -``` - -In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 -to the `int` variable pointed to by argument #1 -(0-based). - -`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the -value you pass to it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and -alive. The implication however is that the value must have a copy -constructor and assignment operator. - -If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain -`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Return; -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(MutateInt, bool(int* value)); -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true))); -``` - -If the output argument is an array, use the -`SetArrayArgument(first, last)` action instead. It copies the -elements in source range `[first, last)` to the array pointed to by -the `N`-th (0-based) argument: - -``` -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; - -class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(int* values, int num_values)); - ... -}; -... - - MockArrayMutator mutator; - int values[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5)); -``` - -This also works when the argument is an output iterator: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SeArrayArgument; - -class MockRolodex : public Rolodex { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(GetNames, void(std::back_insert_iterator >)); - ... -}; -... - - MockRolodex rolodex; - vector names; - names.push_back("George"); - names.push_back("John"); - names.push_back("Thomas"); - EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end())); -``` - -## Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State ## - -If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use `::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the call: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; - -... - { - InSequence seq; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(true)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush()); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(false)); - } - my_mock.FlushIfDirty(); -``` - -This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called and return `false` afterwards. - -If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable and make a mock method get its return value from that variable: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SaveArg; -using ::testing::Return; - -ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; } -... - int previous_value = 0; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value)); - my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue(); -``` - -Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last `UpdateValue()` call. - -## Setting the Default Value for a Return Type ## - -If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by -default it will return 0 when invoked. Also, in C++ 11 and above, a mock -method whose return type has a default constructor will return a default-constructed -value by default. You only need to specify an -action if this default value doesn't work for you. - -Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want -to specify a default value for types Google Mock doesn't know -about. You can do this using the `::testing::DefaultValue` class -template: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(CalculateBar, Bar()); -}; -... - - Bar default_bar; - // Sets the default return value for type Bar. - DefaultValue::Set(default_bar); - - MockFoo foo; - - // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default - // return value works for us. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar()); - - foo.CalculateBar(); // This should return default_bar. - - // Unsets the default return value. - DefaultValue::Clear(); -``` - -Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you -tests hard to understand. We recommend you to use this feature -judiciously. For example, you may want to make sure the `Set()` and -`Clear()` calls are right next to the code that uses your mock. - -## Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method ## - -You've learned how to change the default value of a given -type. However, this may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you -have two mock methods with the same return type and you want them to -have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()` macro allows you to -customize your mock's behavior at the method level: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .WillByDefault(Return(-1)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0)) - .WillByDefault(Return(0)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0))) - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .Times(AnyNumber()); - - foo.Sign(5); // This should return 1. - foo.Sign(-9); // This should return -1. - foo.Sign(0); // This should return 0. -``` - -As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` -statements, the news order take precedence over the older ones. In -other words, the **last** one that matches the function arguments will -be used. This matching order allows you to set up the common behavior -in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and -specialize the mock's behavior later. - -## Using Functions/Methods/Functors as Actions ## - -If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can easily use an existing -function, method, or functor as an action: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Sum, int(int x, int y)); - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int x)); -}; - -int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } - -class Helper { - public: - bool ComplexJob(int x); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(CalculateSum)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob)); - - foo.Sum(5, 6); // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6). - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10); -``` - -The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be -_compatible_ with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the -latter's arguments can be implicitly converted to the corresponding -arguments of the former, and the former's return type can be -implicitly converted to that of the latter. So, you can invoke -something whose type is _not_ exactly the same as the mock function, -as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh? - -## Invoking a Function/Method/Functor Without Arguments ## - -`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It -passes the mock function's arguments to the function or functor being -invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work -with. If the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the -arguments, it can simply ignore them. - -Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function -without the arguments of the mock function. `Invoke()` allows her to -do that using a wrapper function that throws away the arguments before -invoking an underlining nullary function. Needless to say, this can be -tedious and obscures the intent of the test. - -`InvokeWithoutArgs()` solves this problem. It's like `Invoke()` except -that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the -callee. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int n)); -}; - -bool Job1() { ... } -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1)); - - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1(). -``` - -## Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function ## - -Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer or a functor -(in other words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g. - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, bool(int n, bool (*fp)(int))); -}; -``` - -and you may want to invoke this callable argument: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(...); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no -lambda (yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you -really? - -Well, Google Mock has an action to solve _exactly_ this problem: - -``` - InvokeArgument(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m) -``` - -will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, -with `arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is -a function pointer or a functor, Google Mock handles them both. - -With that, you could write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5)); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just -wrap it inside `ByRef()`: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(bool (*fp)(int, const Helper&))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper))); - // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it, - // will be passed to the callable. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** -wrap the argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will _make a -copy_ of the argument, and pass a _reference to the copy_, instead of -a reference to the original value, to the callable. This is especially -handy when the argument is a temporary value: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi"))); - // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer - // DoThat() receives. Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are - // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes. Yet - // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values - // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action. -``` - -## Ignoring an Action's Result ## - -Sometimes you have an action that returns _something_, but you need an -action that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock -function that returns `void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in -`DoAll()` and it's not the last in the list). `IgnoreResult()` lets -you do that. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Return; - -int Process(const MyData& data); -string DoSomething(); - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Abc, void(const MyData& data)); - MOCK_METHOD0(Xyz, bool()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_)) - // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process)); - // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs - // to return void. - .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Invoke(Process))); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz()) - .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(Invoke(DoSomething)), - // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns. - Return(true))); -``` - -Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already -returns `void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors. - -## Selecting an Action's Arguments ## - -Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and -you have a custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is -called. Trouble is, the custom action only wants three arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - MOCK_METHOD7(Foo, bool(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight)); -... - -bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) { - return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0; -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Uh, won't compile. :-( -``` - -To please the compiler God, you can to define an "adaptor" that has -the same signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the -right arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight) { - return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Now it works. -``` - -But isn't this awkward? - -Google Mock provides a generic _action adaptor_, so you can spend your -time minding more important business than writing your own -adaptors. Here's the syntax: - -``` - WithArgs(action) -``` - -creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at -the given indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs -it. Using `WithArgs`, our original example can be written as: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::WithArgs; -... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1))); - // No need to define your own adaptor. -``` - -For better readability, Google Mock also gives you: - - * `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes _no_ argument, and - * `WithArg(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes _one_ argument. - -As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic -sugar for `WithoutArgs(Inovke(...))`. - -Here are more tips: - - * The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be `Invoke()` -- it can be anything. - * You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g. `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`. - * You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`. - * The types of the selected arguments do _not_ have to match the signature of the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example, if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work. - -## Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions ## - -The selecting-an-action's-arguments recipe showed us one way to make a -mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit -together. The downside is that wrapping the action in -`WithArgs<...>()` can get tedious for people writing the tests. - -If you are defining a function, method, or functor to be used with -`Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an -alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as -`Unused`. This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in -case the types of the uninteresting arguments change. It could also -increase the chance the action function can be reused. For example, -given - -``` - MOCK_METHOD3(Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y)); - MOCK_METHOD3(Bar, double(int index, double x, double y)); -``` - -instead of - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} - -double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); -``` - -you could write - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Unused; - -double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); -``` - -## Sharing Actions ## - -Just like matchers, a Google Mock action object consists of a pointer -to a ref-counted implementation object. Therefore copying actions is -also allowed and very efficient. When the last action that references -the implementation object dies, the implementation object will be -deleted. - -If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, -you may not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action -doesn't have an internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing -no matter how many times it has been called), you can assign it to an -action variable and use that variable repeatedly. For example: - -``` - Action set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true)); - ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ... -``` - -However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you -share the action object. Suppose you have an action factory -`IncrementCounter(init)` which creates an action that increments and -returns a counter whose initial value is `init`, using two actions -created from the same expression and using a shared action will -exihibit different behaviors. Example: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different - // counter than Bar()'s. -``` - -versus - -``` - Action increment = IncrementCounter(0); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 3 - the counter is shared. -``` - -# Misc Recipes on Using Google Mock # - -## Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types ## - -C++11 introduced move-only types. A move-only-typed value can be moved from one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr` is probably the most commonly used move-only type. - -Mocking a method that takes and/or returns move-only types presents some challenges, but nothing insurmountable. This recipe shows you how you can do it. - -Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types: - -``` -enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic }; - -class Buzz { - public: - explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { … } - ... -}; - -class Buzzer { - public: - virtual ~Buzzer() {} - virtual std::unique_ptr MakeBuzz(const std::string& text) = 0; - virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr buzz, Time timestamp) = 0; - ... -}; -``` - -A `Buzz` object represents a snippet being posted. A class that implements the `Buzzer` interface is capable of creating and sharing `Buzz`. Methods in `Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr` or take a `unique_ptr`. Now we need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests. - -To mock a method that returns a move-only type, you just use the familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual: - -``` -class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(MakeBuzz, std::unique_ptr(const std::string& text)); - … -}; -``` - -However, if you attempt to use the same `MOCK_METHOD` pattern to mock a method that takes a move-only parameter, you’ll get a compiler error currently: - -``` - // Does NOT compile! - MOCK_METHOD2(ShareBuzz, bool(std::unique_ptr buzz, Time timestamp)); -``` - -While it’s highly desirable to make this syntax just work, it’s not trivial and the work hasn’t been done yet. Fortunately, there is a trick you can apply today to get something that works nearly as well as this. - -The trick, is to delegate the `ShareBuzz()` method to a mock method (let’s call it `DoShareBuzz()`) that does not take move-only parameters: - -``` -class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(MakeBuzz, std::unique_ptr(const std::string& text)); - MOCK_METHOD2(DoShareBuzz, bool(Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp)); - bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr buzz, Time timestamp) { - return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp); - } -}; -``` - -Note that there's no need to define or declare `DoShareBuzz()` in a base class. You only need to define it as a `MOCK_METHOD` in the mock class. - -Now that we have the mock class defined, we can use it in tests. In the following code examples, we assume that we have defined a `MockBuzzer` object named `mock_buzzer_`: - -``` - MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_; -``` - -First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which returns a `unique_ptr`. - -As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or `.WillRepeated()` clause), when that expectation fires, the default action for that method will be taken. Since `unique_ptr<>` has a default constructor that returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify an action: - -``` - // Use the default action. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello")); - - // Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL. - EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello")); -``` - -If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it. Depending on what you need, you may either tweak the default action for a specific (mock object, mock method) combination using `ON_CALL()`, or you may tweak the default action for all mock methods that return a specific type. The usage of `ON_CALL()` is similar to `EXPECT_CALL()`, so we’ll skip it and just explain how to do the latter (tweaking the default action for a specific return type). You do this via the `DefaultValue<>::SetFactory()` and `DefaultValue<>::Clear()` API: - -``` - // Sets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr to - // creating a new Buzz every time. - DefaultValue>::SetFactory( - [] { return MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal); }); - - // When this fires, the default action of MakeBuzz() will run, which - // will return a new Buzz object. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello")).Times(AnyNumber()); - - auto buzz1 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"); - auto buzz2 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"); - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, buzz1); - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, buzz2); - EXPECT_NE(buzz1, buzz2); - - // Resets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr, - // to avoid interfere with other tests. - DefaultValue>::Clear(); -``` - -What if you want the method to do something other than the default action? If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the `Return(ByMove(...))` action: - -``` - // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will - // be returned. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world")) - .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique(AccessLevel::kInternal)))); - - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("world")); -``` - -Note that `ByMove()` is essential here - if you drop it, the code won’t compile. - -Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is performed more than once (e.g. you write `….WillRepeatedly(Return(ByMove(...)));`)? Come think of it, after the first time the action runs, the source value will be consumed (since it’s a move-only value), so the next time around, there’s no value to move from -- you’ll get a run-time error that `Return(ByMove(...))` can only be run once. - -If you need your mock method to do more than just moving a pre-defined value, remember that you can always use `Invoke()` to call a lambda or a callable object, which can do pretty much anything you want: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x")) - .WillRepeatedly(Invoke([](const std::string& text) { - return std::make_unique(AccessLevel::kInternal); - })); - - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x")); - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x")); -``` - -Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr` will be created and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`. - -Now there’s one topic we haven’t covered: how do you set expectations on `ShareBuzz()`, which takes a move-only-typed parameter? The answer is you don’t. Instead, you set expectations on the `DoShareBuzz()` mock method (remember that we defined a `MOCK_METHOD` for `DoShareBuzz()`, not `ShareBuzz()`): - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)); - - // When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is - // forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked. Therefore this statement - // will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL. - mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal), - ::base::Now()); -``` - -Some of you may have spotted one problem with this approach: the `DoShareBuzz()` mock method differs from the real `ShareBuzz()` method in that it cannot take ownership of the buzz parameter - `ShareBuzz()` will always delete buzz after `DoShareBuzz()` returns. What if you need to save the buzz object somewhere for later use when `ShareBuzz()` is called? Indeed, you'd be stuck. - -Another problem with the `DoShareBuzz()` we had is that it can surprise people reading or maintaining the test, as one would expect that `DoShareBuzz()` has (logically) the same contract as `ShareBuzz()`. - -Fortunately, these problems can be fixed with a bit more code. Let's try to get it right this time: - -``` -class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer { - public: - MockBuzzer() { - // Since DoShareBuzz(buzz, time) is supposed to take ownership of - // buzz, define a default behavior for DoShareBuzz(buzz, time) to - // delete buzz. - ON_CALL(*this, DoShareBuzz(_, _)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke([](Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp) { - delete buzz; - return true; - })); - } - - MOCK_METHOD1(MakeBuzz, std::unique_ptr(const std::string& text)); - - // Takes ownership of buzz. - MOCK_METHOD2(DoShareBuzz, bool(Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp)); - bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr buzz, Time timestamp) { - return DoShareBuzz(buzz.release(), timestamp); - } -}; -``` - -Now, the mock `DoShareBuzz()` method is free to save the buzz argument for later use if this is what you want: - -``` - std::unique_ptr intercepted_buzz; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke([&intercepted_buzz](Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp) { - // Save buzz in intercepted_buzz for analysis later. - intercepted_buzz.reset(buzz); - return false; - })); - - mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(std::make_unique(AccessLevel::kInternal), - Now()); - EXPECT_NE(nullptr, intercepted_buzz); -``` - -Using the tricks covered in this recipe, you are now able to mock methods that take and/or return move-only types. Put your newly-acquired power to good use - when you design a new API, you can now feel comfortable using `unique_ptrs` as appropriate, without fearing that doing so will compromise your tests. - -## Making the Compilation Faster ## - -Believe it or not, the _vast majority_ of the time spent on compiling -a mock class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they -perform non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the -expectations). What's more, mock methods with different signatures -have different types and thus their constructors/destructors need to -be generated by the compiler separately. As a result, if you mock many -different types of methods, compiling your mock class can get really -slow. - -If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition -of your mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body -and into a `.cpp` file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock -class in N files, the compiler only needs to generate its constructor -and destructor once, resulting in a much faster compilation. - -Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a -mock class before applying this recipe: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor, - // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit - // where this mock class is used. - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` - -After the change, it would look like: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here. - MockFoo(); - virtual ~MockFoo(); - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` -and -``` -// File mock_foo.cpp. -#include "path/to/mock_foo.h" - -// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a -// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member -// variables used to implement the mock methods. -MockFoo::MockFoo() {} -MockFoo::~MockFoo() {} -``` - -## Forcing a Verification ## - -When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically -verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will -generate [Google Test](../../googletest/) failures -if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to -worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will -be destoyed. - -How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? -Well, it might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are -testing. Suppose there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the -mock object properly - you could end up with a passing test when -there's actually a bug. - -Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but -its implementation may not be 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want -to _force_ Google Mock to verify a mock object before it is -(hopefully) destructed. You can do this with -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`: - -``` -TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) { - using ::testing::Mock; - - MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo; - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...; - // ... other expectations ... - - // server now owns foo. - MyServer server(foo); - server.ProcessRequest(...); - - // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo, - // this will verify the expectations anyway. - Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo); -} // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here. -``` - -**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a -`bool` to indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for -yes), so you can wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if -there is no point going further when the verification has failed. - -## Using Check Points ## - -Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check -points in your test: at each check point, you verify that all existing -expectations on the mock object have been satisfied, and then you set -some new expectations on it as if it's newly created. This allows you -to work with a mock object in "phases" whose sizes are each -manageable. - -One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may -want to put the object you are testing into a certain state, with the -help from a mock object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear -all expectations on the mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can -set fresh expectations on it. - -As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` -function we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you -are using `ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and -want to clear the default actions as well, use -`Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This function does what -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and returns the -same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on -`mock_object` too. - -Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the -expectations in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" -function at specific places. Then you can verify that the mock -function calls do happen at the right time. For example, if you are -exercising code: - -``` -Foo(1); -Foo(2); -Foo(3); -``` - -and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke -`mock.Bar("a")`, but `Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write: - -``` -using ::testing::MockFunction; - -TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { - MyMock mock; - // Class MockFunction has exactly one mock method. It is named - // Call() and has type F. - MockFunction check; - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - } - Foo(1); - check.Call("1"); - Foo(2); - check.Call("2"); - Foo(3); -} -``` - -The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before -check point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", -and nothing should happen between the two check points. The explicit -check points make it easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which -call to `Foo()`. - -## Mocking Destructors ## - -Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the -right time, e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is -called. We already know that you can specify constraints on the order -of mock function calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor -of the mock function. - -This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special -function with special syntax and special semantics, and the -`MOCK_METHOD0` macro doesn't work for it: - -``` - MOCK_METHOD0(~MockFoo, void()); // Won't compile! -``` - -The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same -effect. First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call -it in the destructor, like this: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - // Add the following two lines to the mock class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Die, void()); - virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); } -}; -``` - -(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another -name.) Now, we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` -object dies to testing when its `Die()` method is called: - -``` - MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo; - MockBar* bar = new MockBar; - ... - { - InSequence s; - - // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B(). - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A()); - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die()); - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B()); - } -``` - -And that's that. - -## Using Google Mock and Threads ## - -**IMPORTANT NOTE:** What we describe in this recipe is **ONLY** true on -platforms where Google Mock is thread-safe. Currently these are only -platforms that support the pthreads library (this includes Linux and Mac). -To make it thread-safe on other platforms we only need to implement -some synchronization operations in `"gtest/internal/gtest-port.h"`. - -In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of -code in a single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and -dead locks, and makes debugging your test much easier. - -Yet many programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something -we need to pound on it from more than one thread. Google Mock works -for this purpose too. - -Remember the steps for using a mock: - - 1. Create a mock object `foo`. - 1. Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and `EXPECT_CALL()`. - 1. The code under test calls methods of `foo`. - 1. Optionally, verify and reset the mock. - 1. Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The destructor will automatically verify it. - -If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can -live happily together: - - * Execute your _test code_ (as opposed to the code being tested) in _one_ thread. This makes your test easy to follow. - * Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking. - * When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`. Obvious too, huh? - * #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway you want. Google Mock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - unless required by your test logic. - -If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a -mock while another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined -behavior. That's not fun, so don't do it. - -Google Mock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in -the same thread that called the mock function. For example, in - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1)) - .WillOnce(action1); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2)) - .WillOnce(action2); -``` - -if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, -Google Mock will execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread -2. - -Google Mock does _not_ impose a sequence on actions performed in -different threads (doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may -need to cooperate). This means that the execution of `action1` and -`action2` in the above example _may_ interleave. If this is a problem, -you should add proper synchronization logic to `action1` and `action2` -to make the test thread-safe. - - -Also, remember that `DefaultValue` is a global resource that -potentially affects _all_ living mock objects in your -program. Naturally, you won't want to mess with it from multiple -threads or when there still are mocks in action. - -## Controlling How Much Information Google Mock Prints ## - -When Google Mock sees something that has the potential of being an -error (e.g. a mock function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an -uninteresting call, which is allowed but perhaps you forgot to -explicitly ban the call), it prints some warning messages, including -the arguments of the function and the return value. Hopefully this -will remind you to take a look and see if there is indeed a problem. - -Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not -appreciate such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging -your tests or learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, -and wish you could observe every mock call that happens (including -argument values and the return value). Clearly, one size doesn't fit -all. - -You can control how much Google Mock tells you using the -`--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string -with three possible values: - - * `info`: Google Mock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors (most verbose). At this setting, Google Mock will also log any calls to the `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. - * `warning`: Google Mock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose). This is the default. - * `error`: Google Mock will print errors only (least verbose). - -Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your -tests like so: - -``` - ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error"; -``` - -Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable Google Mock serve you better! - -## Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls ## - -You have a test using Google Mock. It fails: Google Mock tells you -that some expectations aren't satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: -Is there a typo somewhere in the matchers? Did you mess up the order -of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under test doing something -wrong? How can you find out the cause? - -Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the -trace of all `EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? -For each call, would you like to see its actual argument values and -which `EXPECT_CALL` Google Mock thinks it matches? - -You can unlock this power by running your test with the -`--gmock_verbose=info` flag. For example, given the test program: - -``` -using testing::_; -using testing::HasSubstr; -using testing::Return; - -class MockFoo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(F, void(const string& x, const string& y)); -}; - -TEST(Foo, Bar) { - MockFoo mock; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)).WillRepeatedly(Return()); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))); - - mock.F("a", "good"); - mock.F("a", "b"); -} -``` - -if you run it with `--gmock_verbose=info`, you will see this output: - -``` -[ RUN ] Foo.Bar - -foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked -foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked -foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked -foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))... - Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a", @0x7fff7c8dad10"good") -foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))... - Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a", @0x7fff7c8dad70"b") -foo_test.cc:16: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")))... - Expected: to be called once - Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active -[ FAILED ] Foo.Bar -``` - -Suppose the bug is that the `"c"` in the third `EXPECT_CALL` is a typo -and should actually be `"a"`. With the above message, you should see -that the actual `F("a", "good")` call is matched by the first -`EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as you thought. From that it should be -obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is written wrong. Case solved. - -## Running Tests in Emacs ## - -If you build and run your tests in Emacs, the source file locations of -Google Mock and [Google Test](../../googletest/) -errors will be highlighted. Just press `` on one of them and -you'll be taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x `` -to jump to the next error. - -To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your -`~/.emacs` file: - -``` -(global-set-key "\M-m" 'compile) ; m is for make -(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error) -(global-set-key [M-up] '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1))) -``` - -Then you can type `M-m` to start a build, or `M-up`/`M-down` to move -back and forth between errors. - -## Fusing Google Mock Source Files ## - -Google Mock's implementation consists of dozens of files (excluding -its own tests). Sometimes you may want them to be packaged up in -fewer files instead, such that you can easily copy them to a new -machine and start hacking there. For this we provide an experimental -Python script `fuse_gmock_files.py` in the `scripts/` directory -(starting with release 1.2.0). Assuming you have Python 2.4 or above -installed on your machine, just go to that directory and run -``` -python fuse_gmock_files.py OUTPUT_DIR -``` - -and you should see an `OUTPUT_DIR` directory being created with files -`gtest/gtest.h`, `gmock/gmock.h`, and `gmock-gtest-all.cc` in it. -These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and -Google Test). Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready -to write tests and use mocks. You can use the -[scrpts/test/Makefile](../scripts/test/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests -against them. - -# Extending Google Mock # - -## Writing New Matchers Quickly ## - -The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers -easily. The syntax: - -``` -MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; } -``` - -will define a matcher with the given name that executes the -statements, which must return a `bool` to indicate if the match -succeeds. Inside the statements, you can refer to the value being -matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by `arg_type`. - -The description string is a `string`-typed expression that documents -what the matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message -when the match fails. It can (and should) reference the special -`bool` variable `negation`, and should evaluate to the description of -the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that of the matcher's -negation when `negation` is `true`. - -For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), -in which case Google Mock will use the sequence of words in the -matcher name as the description. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; } -``` -allows you to write -``` - // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -or, -``` -using ::testing::Not; -... - EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7()); - EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -If the above assertions fail, they will print something like: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 -... - Value of: some_other_expression - Expected: not (is divisible by 7) - Actual: 21 -``` -where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible -by 7)"` are automatically calculated from the matcher name -`IsDivisibleBy7`. - -As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially -those for the negation) may not be so great. You can always override -them with a string expression of your own: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + - " divisible by 7") { - return (arg % 7) == 0; -} -``` - -Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument -named `result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a -better definition of `IsDivisibleBy7` is: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { - if ((arg % 7) == 0) - return true; - - *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7); - return false; -} -``` - -With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6) -``` - -You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print _any additional information_ -that can help a user understand the match result. Note that it should -explain why the match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's -obvious) - this is useful when the matcher is used inside -`Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value itself, as -Google Mock already prints it for you. - -**Notes:** - - 1. The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a `bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an `int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will be `unsigned long`; and so on. - 1. Google Mock doesn't guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be invoked. Therefore the matcher logic must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). This requirement must be satisfied no matter how you define the matcher (e.g. using one of the methods described in the following recipes). In particular, a matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the mock object and Google Mock. - -## Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you -can use the macro: -``` -MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } -``` -where the description string can be either `""` or a string expression -that references `negation` and `param_name`. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -``` -will allow you to write: -``` - EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -``` -which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10): -``` - Value of: Blah("a") - Expected: has absolute value 10 - Actual: -9 -``` - -Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -printed, making the message human-friendly. - -In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to -reference the type of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the -body of `MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write -`value_type` to refer to the type of `value`. - -Google Mock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to -`MATCHER_P10` to support multi-parameter matchers: -``` -MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; } -``` - -Please note that the custom description string is for a particular -**instance** of the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to -actual values. Therefore usually you'll want the parameter values to -be part of the description. Google Mock lets you do that by -referencing the matcher parameters in the description string -expression. - -For example, -``` - using ::testing::PrintToString; - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, - std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " in range [" + - PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { - return low <= arg && arg <= hi; - } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the message: -``` - Expected: is in range [4, 6] -``` - -If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will -contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -``` - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the text: -``` - Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -``` - -For the purpose of typing, you can view -``` -MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } -``` -as shorthand for -``` -template -FooMatcherPk -Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -``` - -When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of -the parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with -the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -explicitly instantiating the template, as in `Foo(5, false)`. -As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -`arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -is used. - -You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a -variable of type `FooMatcherPk`. This can be -useful when composing matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter -or have only one parameter have special types: you can assign `Foo()` -to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and assign `Foo(p)` to a -`FooMatcherP`-typed variable. - -While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -address. - -You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -``` -MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... } -MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... } -``` - -While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining -a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -`MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see -the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher a -lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more -control on the types of the value being matched and the matcher -parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages -that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers -based on parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of -parameters). - -## Writing New Monomorphic Matchers ## - -A matcher of argument type `T` implements -`::testing::MatcherInterface` and does two things: it tests whether a -value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can describe what kind of -values it matches. The latter ability is used for generating readable -error messages when expectations are violated. - -The interface looks like this: - -``` -class MatchResultListener { - public: - ... - // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream - // is NULL. - template - MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x); - - // Returns the underlying ostream. - ::std::ostream* stream(); -}; - -template -class MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual ~MatcherInterface(); - - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener'. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const; -}; -``` - -If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for -example, you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` -describes itself, or you may want your matcher to be polymorphic as -`Eq(value)` is), you can define a matcher to do whatever you want in -two steps: first implement the matcher interface, and then define a -factory function to create a matcher instance. The second step is not -strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher nicer. - -For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is -divisible by 7 and then use it like this: -``` -using ::testing::MakeMatcher; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (n % 7) == 0; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is divisible by 7"; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is not divisible by 7"; - } -}; - -inline Matcher DivisibleBy7() { - return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7())); -``` - -You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional -information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`: - -``` -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const int remainder = n % 7; - if (remainder != 0) { - *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder; - } - return remainder == 0; - } - ... -}; -``` - -Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may general a message like this: -``` -Value of: x -Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2) -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Matchers ## - -You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous -recipe. Just one problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only -works for one particular type of arguments. If you want a -_polymorphic_ matcher that works with arguments of several types (for -instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a `value` as long as `value` == -`x` compiles -- `value` and `x` don't have to share the same type), -you can learn the trick from `"gmock/gmock-matchers.h"` but it's a bit -involved. - -Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher -easily with the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can -define `NotNull()` as an example: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher; - -class NotNullMatcher { - public: - // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class - // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and - // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following. - - // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so - // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. - // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or - // a method template, or even overload it. - template - bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, - MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const { - return p != NULL; - } - - // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. - void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } - - // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. - void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } -}; - -// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class -// to MakePolymorphicMatcher(). Note the return type. -inline PolymorphicMatcher NotNull() { - return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher()); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. -``` - -**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from -`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need -to be virtual. - -Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by -streaming additional information to the `listener` argument in -`MatchAndExplain()`. - -## Writing New Cardinalities ## - -A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell Google Mock how many times -you expect a call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, -you can say `AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`. - -If the built-in set of cardinalities doesn't suit you, you are free to -define your own by implementing the following interface (in namespace -`testing`): - -``` -class CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual ~CardinalityInterface(); - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Describes self to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; -}; -``` - -For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, -you can write - -``` -using ::testing::Cardinality; -using ::testing::CardinalityInterface; -using ::testing::MakeCardinality; - -class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return (call_count % 2) == 0; - } - - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return false; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "called even number of times"; - } -}; - -Cardinality EvenNumber() { - return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3)) - .Times(EvenNumber()); -``` - -## Writing New Actions Quickly ## - -If the built-in actions don't work for you, and you find it -inconvenient to use `Invoke()`, you can use a macro from the `ACTION*` -family to quickly define a new action that can be used in your code as -if it's a built-in action. - -By writing -``` -ACTION(name) { statements; } -``` -in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will -define an action with the given name that executes the statements. -The value returned by `statements` will be used as the return value of -the action. Inside the statements, you can refer to the K-th -(0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`. For example: -``` -ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } -``` -allows you to write -``` -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -arguments. Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: -you'll get a compiler error if `*arg1` doesn't support the `++` -operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock -function's return type. - -Another example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - (*arg2)(5); - Blah(); - *arg1 = 0; - return arg0; -} -``` -defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) -with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument -#1 to 0, and returns argument #0. - -For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following -pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`: - -| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function | -|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| -| `args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function | -| `function_type` | The type of the mock function | - -For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: -``` -int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); -``` -we have: -| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** | -|:-----------------------|:----------------| -| `arg0` | the value of `flag` | -| `arg0_type` | the type `bool` | -| `arg1` | the value of `ptr` | -| `arg1_type` | the type `int*` | -| `args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` | -| `args_type` | the type `::testing::tuple` | -| `return_type` | the type `int` | -| `function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` | - -## Writing New Parameterized Actions Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that -we have another macro -``` -ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } -``` - -For example, -``` -ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -``` -will allow you to write -``` -// Returns argument #0 + 5. -... WillOnce(Add(5)); -``` - -For convenience, we use the term _arguments_ for the values used to -invoke the mock function, and the term _parameters_ for the values -used to instantiate an action. - -Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. -Suppose the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the -Google-Mock-defined symbol `param_type` to refer to the type of the -parameter as inferred by the compiler. For example, in the body of -`ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for the type of `n`. - -Google Mock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support -multi-parameter actions. For example, -``` -ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { - double dx = arg0 - x; - double dy = arg1 - y; - return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); -} -``` -lets you write -``` -... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); -``` - -You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the -number of parameters is 0. - -You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: -``` -ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -``` - -## Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION ## - -For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask -you to provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action -parameters. Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. - -Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. -There are several tricks to do that. For example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. - int n = arg0; - ... use n instead of arg0 here ... -} - -ACTION_P(Bar, param) { - // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. - ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); - - // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. - bool flag = param; -} -``` -where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in Google Test -that verifies two types are the same. - -## Writing New Action Templates Quickly ## - -Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that -cannot be inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` -supports that and can be viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and -`ACTION_P*()`. - -The syntax: -``` -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, - HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), - AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -``` - -defines an action template that takes _m_ explicit template parameters -and _n_ value parameters, where _m_ is between 1 and 10, and _n_ is -between 0 and 10. `name_i` is the name of the i-th template -parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a `typename`, an -integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the i-th value -parameter. - -Example: -``` -// DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// function to type T and copies it to *output. -ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, - // Note the comma between int and k: - HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { - *output = T(::testing::get(args)); -} -``` - -To create an instance of an action template, write: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where the `t`s are the template arguments and the -`v`s are the value arguments. The value argument -types are inferred by the compiler. For example: -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - int n; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) - .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -``` - -If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -provide additional template arguments: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`. - -`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the -number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following is -unclear: - -``` - OverloadedAction(x); -``` - -Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to -the type of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler -is asked to infer the type of `x`? - -## Using the ACTION Object's Type ## - -If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll -need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define -the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: -| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** | -|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------| -| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar(int_value)` | `FooActionP` | -| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2` | -| ... | ... | ... | - -Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, -`ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of value -parameters, or the action definitions cannot be overloaded on the -number of them. - -## Writing New Monomorphic Actions ## - -While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are -inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous -recipes, they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock -function arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads -to unoptimized compiler error messages that can baffle unfamiliar -users. They also don't allow overloading actions based on parameter -types without jumping through some hoops. - -An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement -`::testing::ActionInterface`, where `F` is the type of the mock -function in which the action will be used. For example: - -``` -template class ActionInterface { - public: - virtual ~ActionInterface(); - - // Performs the action. Result is the return type of function type - // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F. - // - // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would - // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be ::testing::tuple. - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0; -}; - -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Action; -using ::testing::ActionInterface; -using ::testing::MakeAction; - -typedef int IncrementMethod(int*); - -class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface { - public: - virtual int Perform(const ::testing::tuple& args) { - int* p = ::testing::get<0>(args); // Grabs the first argument. - return *p++; - } -}; - -Action IncrementArgument() { - return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_)) - .WillOnce(IncrementArgument()); - - int n = 5; - foo.Baz(&n); // Should return 5 and change n to 6. -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Actions ## - -The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is -all good, except that you need to know the type of the function in -which the action will be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For -example, if you want to use the action in functions with _different_ -types (e.g. like `Return()` and `SetArgPointee()`). - -If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say -it's _polymorphic_. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template -makes it easy to define such an action: - -``` -namespace testing { - -template -PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl); - -} // namespace testing -``` - -As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument -in the mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an -implementation class: - -``` -class ReturnSecondArgumentAction { - public: - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use ::testing::get(args). - return ::testing::get<1>(args); - } -}; -``` - -This implementation class does _not_ need to inherit from any -particular class. What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` -method template. This method template takes the mock function's -arguments as a tuple in a **single** argument, and returns the result of -the action. It can be either `const` or not, but must be invokable -with exactly one template argument, which is the result type. In other -words, you must be able to call `Perform(args)` where `R` is the -mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple. - -Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the -implementation class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be -convenient to have a wrapper for this: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction; -using ::testing::PolymorphicAction; - -PolymorphicAction ReturnSecondArgument() { - return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction()); -} -``` - -Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the -built-in ones: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, int(bool flag, int n)); - MOCK_METHOD3(DoThat, string(int x, const char* str1, const char* str2)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - ... - foo.DoThis(true, 5); // Will return 5. - foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye"); // Will return "Hi". -``` - -## Teaching Google Mock How to Print Your Values ## - -When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, Google Mock prints the -argument values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion -macros like `EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in -question when the assertion fails. Google Mock and Google Test do this using -Google Test's user-extensible value printer. - -This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL -containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other -types, it prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the -user can figure it out. -[Google Test's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md#teaching-google-test-how-to-print-your-values) -explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at -printing your particular type than to dump the bytes. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md deleted file mode 100644 index 3f515c3..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,280 +0,0 @@ -This page discusses the design of new Google Mock features. - - - -# Macros for Defining Actions # - -## Problem ## - -Due to the lack of closures in C++, it currently requires some -non-trivial effort to define a custom action in Google Mock. For -example, suppose you want to "increment the value pointed to by the -second argument of the mock function and return it", you could write: - -``` -int IncrementArg1(Unused, int* p, Unused) { - return ++(*p); -} - -... WillOnce(Invoke(IncrementArg1)); -``` - -There are several things unsatisfactory about this approach: - - * Even though the action only cares about the second argument of the mock function, its definition needs to list other arguments as dummies. This is tedious. - * The defined action is usable only in mock functions that takes exactly 3 arguments - an unnecessary restriction. - * To use the action, one has to say `Invoke(IncrementArg1)`, which isn't as nice as `IncrementArg1()`. - -The latter two problems can be overcome using `MakePolymorphicAction()`, -but it requires much more boilerplate code: - -``` -class IncrementArg1Action { - public: - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - return ++(*tr1::get<1>(args)); - } -}; - -PolymorphicAction IncrementArg1() { - return MakePolymorphicAction(IncrementArg1Action()); -} - -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Our goal is to allow defining custom actions with the least amount of -boiler-plate C++ requires. - -## Solution ## - -We propose to introduce a new macro: -``` -ACTION(name) { statements; } -``` - -Using this in a namespace scope will define an action with the given -name that executes the statements. Inside the statements, you can -refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`. -For example: -``` -ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } -``` -allows you to write -``` -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -arguments, as brevity is a top design goal here. Rest assured that -your code is still type-safe though: you'll get a compiler error if -`*arg1` doesn't support the `++` operator, or if the type of -`++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock function's return type. - -Another example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - (*arg2)(5); - Blah(); - *arg1 = 0; - return arg0; -} -``` -defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) -with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument -#1 to 0, and returns argument #0. - -For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following -pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`: - -| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function | -|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| -| `args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function | -| `function_type` | The type of the mock function | - -For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: -``` -int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); -``` -we have: -| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** | -|:-----------------------|:----------------| -| `arg0` | the value of `flag` | -| `arg0_type` | the type `bool` | -| `arg1` | the value of `ptr` | -| `arg1_type` | the type `int*` | -| `args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` | -| `args_type` | the type `std::tr1::tuple` | -| `return_type` | the type `int` | -| `function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` | - -## Parameterized actions ## - -Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the action. For that we propose -another macro -``` -ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } -``` - -For example, -``` -ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -``` -will allow you to write -``` -// Returns argument #0 + 5. -... WillOnce(Add(5)); -``` - -For convenience, we use the term _arguments_ for the values used to -invoke the mock function, and the term _parameters_ for the values -used to instantiate an action. - -Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. -Suppose the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the -Google-Mock-defined symbol `param_type` to refer to the type of the -parameter as inferred by the compiler. - -We will also provide `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support -multi-parameter actions. For example, -``` -ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { - double dx = arg0 - x; - double dy = arg1 - y; - return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); -} -``` -lets you write -``` -... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); -``` - -You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the -number of parameters is 0. - -## Advanced Usages ## - -### Overloading Actions ### - -You can easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: -``` -ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -``` - -### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter ### - -For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't let -you specify the types of the mock function arguments and the action -parameters. Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. - -Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. -There are several tricks to do that. For example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. - int n = arg0; - ... use n instead of arg0 here ... -} - -ACTION_P(Bar, param) { - // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. - ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); - - // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. - bool flag = param; -} -``` -where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion we plan to add to -Google Test (the name is chosen to match `static_assert` in C++0x). - -### Using the ACTION Object's Type ### - -If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll -need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define -the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: -| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** | -|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------| -| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | -| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | -| ... | ... | ... | - -Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, -`ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of parameters, -or the action definitions cannot be overloaded on the number of -parameters. - -## When to Use ## - -While the new macros are very convenient, please also consider other -means of implementing actions (e.g. via `ActionInterface` or -`MakePolymorphicAction()`), especially if you need to use the defined -action a lot. While the other approaches require more work, they give -you more control on the types of the mock function arguments and the -action parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error -messages that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading -actions based on parameter types, as opposed to just the number of -parameters. - -## Related Work ## - -As you may have realized, the `ACTION*` macros resemble closures (also -known as lambda expressions or anonymous functions). Indeed, both of -them seek to lower the syntactic overhead for defining a function. - -C++0x will support lambdas, but they are not part of C++ right now. -Some non-standard libraries (most notably BLL or Boost Lambda Library) -try to alleviate this problem. However, they are not a good choice -for defining actions as: - - * They are non-standard and not widely installed. Google Mock only depends on standard libraries and `tr1::tuple`, which is part of the new C++ standard and comes with gcc 4+. We want to keep it that way. - * They are not trivial to learn. - * They will become obsolete when C++0x's lambda feature is widely supported. We don't want to make our users use a dying library. - * Since they are based on operators, they are rather ad hoc: you cannot use statements, and you cannot pass the lambda arguments to a function, for example. - * They have subtle semantics that easily confuses new users. For example, in expression `_1++ + foo++`, `foo` will be incremented only once where the expression is evaluated, while `_1` will be incremented every time the unnamed function is invoked. This is far from intuitive. - -`ACTION*` avoid all these problems. - -## Future Improvements ## - -There may be a need for composing `ACTION*` definitions (i.e. invoking -another `ACTION` inside the definition of one `ACTION*`). We are not -sure we want it yet, as one can get a similar effect by putting -`ACTION` definitions in function templates and composing the function -templates. We'll revisit this based on user feedback. - -The reason we don't allow `ACTION*()` inside a function body is that -the current C++ standard doesn't allow function-local types to be used -to instantiate templates. The upcoming C++0x standard will lift this -restriction. Once this feature is widely supported by compilers, we -can revisit the implementation and add support for using `ACTION*()` -inside a function. - -C++0x will also support lambda expressions. When they become -available, we may want to support using lambdas as actions. - -# Macros for Defining Matchers # - -Once the macros for defining actions are implemented, we plan to do -the same for matchers: - -``` -MATCHER(name) { statements; } -``` - -where you can refer to the value being matched as `arg`. For example, -given: - -``` -MATCHER(IsPositive) { return arg > 0; } -``` - -you can use `IsPositive()` as a matcher that matches a value iff it is -greater than 0. - -We will also add `MATCHER_P`, `MATCHER_P2`, and etc for parameterized -matchers. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md deleted file mode 100644 index f4bab75..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,132 +0,0 @@ - - -If you are interested in understanding the internals of Google Mock, -building from source, or contributing ideas or modifications to the -project, then this document is for you. - -# Introduction # - -First, let's give you some background of the project. - -## Licensing ## - -All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the [New BSD License](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). - -## The Google Mock Community ## - -The Google Mock community exists primarily through the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock), the -[issue tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues) and, to a lesser extent, the [source control repository](../). You are definitely encouraged to contribute to the -discussion and you can also help us to keep the effectiveness of the -group high by following and promoting the guidelines listed here. - -### Please Be Friendly ### - -Showing courtesy and respect to others is a vital part of the Google -culture, and we strongly encourage everyone participating in Google -Mock development to join us in accepting nothing less. Of course, -being courteous is not the same as failing to constructively disagree -with each other, but it does mean that we should be respectful of each -other when enumerating the 42 technical reasons that a particular -proposal may not be the best choice. There's never a reason to be -antagonistic or dismissive toward anyone who is sincerely trying to -contribute to a discussion. - -Sure, C++ testing is serious business and all that, but it's also -a lot of fun. Let's keep it that way. Let's strive to be one of the -friendliest communities in all of open source. - -### Where to Discuss Google Mock ### - -As always, discuss Google Mock in the official [Google C++ Mocking Framework discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock). You don't have to actually submit -code in order to sign up. Your participation itself is a valuable -contribution. - -# Working with the Code # - -If you want to get your hands dirty with the code inside Google Mock, -this is the section for you. - -## Checking Out the Source from Subversion ## - -Checking out the Google Mock source is most useful if you plan to -tweak it yourself. You check out the source for Google Mock using a -[Subversion](http://subversion.tigris.org/) client as you would for any -other project hosted on Google Code. Please see the instruction on -the [source code access page](../) for how to do it. - -## Compiling from Source ## - -Once you check out the code, you can find instructions on how to -compile it in the [README](../README.md) file. - -## Testing ## - -A mocking framework is of no good if itself is not thoroughly tested. -Tests should be written for any new code, and changes should be -verified to not break existing tests before they are submitted for -review. To perform the tests, follow the instructions in [README](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/README) and -verify that there are no failures. - -# Contributing Code # - -We are excited that Google Mock is now open source, and hope to get -great patches from the community. Before you fire up your favorite IDE -and begin hammering away at that new feature, though, please take the -time to read this section and understand the process. While it seems -rigorous, we want to keep a high standard of quality in the code -base. - -## Contributor License Agreements ## - -You must sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) before we can -accept any code. The CLA protects you and us. - - * If you are an individual writing original source code and you're sure you own the intellectual property, then you'll need to sign an [individual CLA](http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html). - * If you work for a company that wants to allow you to contribute your work to Google Mock, then you'll need to sign a [corporate CLA](http://code.google.com/legal/corporate-cla-v1.0.html). - -Follow either of the two links above to access the appropriate CLA and -instructions for how to sign and return it. - -## Coding Style ## - -To keep the source consistent, readable, diffable and easy to merge, -we use a fairly rigid coding style, as defined by the [google-styleguide](https://github.com/google/styleguide) project. All patches will be expected -to conform to the style outlined [here](https://github.com/google/styleguide/blob/gh-pages/cppguide.xml). - -## Submitting Patches ## - -Please do submit code. Here's what you need to do: - - 1. Normally you should make your change against the SVN trunk instead of a branch or a tag, as the latter two are for release control and should be treated mostly as read-only. - 1. Decide which code you want to submit. A submission should be a set of changes that addresses one issue in the [Google Mock issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list). Please don't mix more than one logical change per submittal, because it makes the history hard to follow. If you want to make a change that doesn't have a corresponding issue in the issue tracker, please create one. - 1. Also, coordinate with team members that are listed on the issue in question. This ensures that work isn't being duplicated and communicating your plan early also generally leads to better patches. - 1. Ensure that your code adheres to the [Google Mock source code style](#Coding_Style.md). - 1. Ensure that there are unit tests for your code. - 1. Sign a Contributor License Agreement. - 1. Create a patch file using `svn diff`. - 1. We use [Rietveld](http://codereview.appspot.com/) to do web-based code reviews. You can read about the tool [here](https://github.com/rietveld-codereview/rietveld/wiki). When you are ready, upload your patch via Rietveld and notify `googlemock@googlegroups.com` to review it. There are several ways to upload the patch. We recommend using the [upload\_gmock.py](../scripts/upload_gmock.py) script, which you can find in the `scripts/` folder in the SVN trunk. - -## Google Mock Committers ## - -The current members of the Google Mock engineering team are the only -committers at present. In the great tradition of eating one's own -dogfood, we will be requiring each new Google Mock engineering team -member to earn the right to become a committer by following the -procedures in this document, writing consistently great code, and -demonstrating repeatedly that he or she truly gets the zen of Google -Mock. - -# Release Process # - -We follow the typical release process for Subversion-based projects: - - 1. A release branch named `release-X.Y` is created. - 1. Bugs are fixed and features are added in trunk; those individual patches are merged into the release branch until it's stable. - 1. An individual point release (the `Z` in `X.Y.Z`) is made by creating a tag from the branch. - 1. Repeat steps 2 and 3 throughout one release cycle (as determined by features or time). - 1. Go back to step 1 to create another release branch and so on. - - ---- - -This page is based on the [Making GWT Better](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html) guide from the [Google Web Toolkit](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/) project. Except as otherwise [noted](http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions), the content of this page is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/). diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/Documentation.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/Documentation.md deleted file mode 100644 index 444151e..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/Documentation.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12 +0,0 @@ -This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk version)** -- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.** - - * [ForDummies](ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock. - * [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference. - * [CookBook](CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock. - * [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list. - -To contribute code to Google Mock, read: - - * [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch. - * [Pump Manual](../googletest/docs/PumpManual.md) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md deleted file mode 100644 index e2f362a..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,439 +0,0 @@ - - -(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md#how-am-i-supposed-to-make-sense-of-these-horrible-template-errors).) - -# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? # -When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc). - -**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community: - - * **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake. - * **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. - -If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks. - -**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java. - -Using Google Mock involves three basic steps: - - 1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class; - 1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax; - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises. - -# Why Google Mock? # -While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_: - - * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. - * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. - * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next. - -In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. - -Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you: - - * You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid". - * Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database). - * Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network). - * You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one. - * You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best. - * You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks. - -We encourage you to use Google Mock as: - - * a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs! - * a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators. - -# Getting Started # -Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just #include `"gtest/gtest.h"` and `"gmock/gmock.h"`, and you are ready to go. - -# A Case for Mock Turtles # -Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface: - -``` -class Turtle { - ... - virtual ~Turtle() {} - virtual void PenUp() = 0; - virtual void PenDown() = 0; - virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0; - virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0; - virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0; - virtual int GetX() const = 0; - virtual int GetY() const = 0; -}; -``` - -(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.) - -You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle. - -Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_. - -# Writing the Mock Class # -If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.) - -## How to Define It ## -Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow: - - 1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`. - 1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](CookBook.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has. - 1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so. - 1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_). - 1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. - -After the process, you should have something like: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in Google Mock. -class MockTurtle : public Turtle { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees)); - MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int()); -}; -``` - -You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins. - -**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the -`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line -tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it, -and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the -complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but -it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](../scripts/generator/README). - -## Where to Put It ## -When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?) - -So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed. - -Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # -Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is: - - 1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.). - 1. Create some mock objects. - 1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.). - 1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately. - 1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here's an example: - -``` -#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h" -#include "gmock/gmock.h" -#include "gtest/gtest.h" -using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1 - -TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) { - MockTurtle turtle; // #2 - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3 - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - - Painter painter(&turtle); // #4 - - EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); -} // #5 - -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock - // (and Google Test) before running the tests. - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); -} -``` - -As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this: - -``` -path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation: -Actually: never called; -Expected: called at least once. -``` - -**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation. - -**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap. - -**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions. - -This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier. - -Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks. - -## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ## -If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppunit/) or -[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to: -``` -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure, - // which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure. - ::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true; - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - ... whatever your testing framework requires ... -} -``` - -This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception -from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this -sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to -notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure. - -A better solution is to use Google Test's -[event listener API](../../googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md#extending-google-test-by-handling-test-events) -to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to -implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it -should be straightforward. - -If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with -Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is -technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you -cannot use Google Test, please let us know. - -# Setting Expectations # -The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right." - -## General Syntax ## -In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is: - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .Times(cardinality) - .WillOnce(action) - .WillRepeatedly(action); -``` - -The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.) - -The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections. - -This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .Times(5) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(150)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(200)); -``` - -says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL). - -**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier. - -## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ## -When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example: - -``` -// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); -``` - -Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes": - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... -// Expects the turtle to move forward. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); -``` - -`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. - -A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); -``` - -This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units. - -## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ## -The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly. - -An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called. - -We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md). - -The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember: - - * If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. - -**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times? - -## Actions: What Should It Do? ## -Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock. - -First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). In addition, in C++ 11 and above, a mock function whose return type is default-constructible (i.e. has a default constructor) has a default action of returning a default-constructed value. If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used. - -Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillOnce(Return(300)); -``` - -This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(300)); -``` - -says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on. - -Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.). - -What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](CheatSheet.md#actions). - -**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want: - -``` -int n = 100; -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) -.Times(4) -.WillRepeatedly(Return(n++)); -``` - -Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](CookBook.md). - -Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) -.Times(4) -.WillOnce(Return(100)); -``` - -Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions. - -## Using Multiple Expectations ## -So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects. - -By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation. - -**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it. - -## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ## -By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified. - -Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence;... -TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { - ... - { - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp()); - } - Foo(); -} -``` - -By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant. - -In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. - -(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).) - -## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ## -Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? - -After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()); -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above. - -This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.). - -Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say? - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)); -} -``` - -If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful! - -One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; -... -{ - InSequence s; - - for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - } -} -``` - -By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call). - -## Uninteresting Calls ## -A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called. - -In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure. - -# What Now? # -Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned. - -Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md deleted file mode 100644 index 5eac83f..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,628 +0,0 @@ - - -Please send your questions to the -[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion -group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have -tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first. - -## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? ## - -In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](CookBook.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods). - -## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ## - -After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how -to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative -messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what -we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it. - -Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers -by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, -your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the -`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected. - -Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's -in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than -later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing -matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do: - -If you wrote your matcher like this: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -you'll need to change it to: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` -(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second -argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.) - -If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher -message: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - - virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) const { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - } - ... -}; -``` - -you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into -`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where -the `::std::ostream` was used: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and -add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do -for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`): -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better -failure messages: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher, - MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); -} -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to -`MatchAndExplain()`: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -For more information, you can read these -[two](CookBook.md#writing-new-monomorphic-matchers) -[recipes](CookBook.md#writing-new-polymorphic-matchers) -from the cookbook. As always, you -are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you -need any help. - -## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ## - -Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy -to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice. -[Here](ForDummies.md#using-google-mock-with-any-testing-framework) is how. - -## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ## - -If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you, -try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to -scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the -problems (we call them diseases) your code has. - -To "install", run command: -``` -alias gmd='/scripts/gmock_doctor.py' -``` - -To use it, do: -``` - 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -For example: -``` -make my_test 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it. - -## Can I mock a variadic function? ## - -You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis -(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock. - -The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to -know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what -the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows -the protocol, and we cannot look into his head. - -Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock -object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One -way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function. - -Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. -They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have -constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in -C++ as much as possible. - -## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ## - -If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i)); -}; -``` -You may get the following warning: -``` -warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier -``` - -This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for -example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning: -``` -warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers -``` - -In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the -`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above -is equivalent to: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference. -}; -``` - -In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_ -it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them -up. - -Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method -_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. -That should workaround the VC bug. - -Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here. -If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring -the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For -example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent: -``` -void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const. -void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is. -``` - -## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ## - -We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ -uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest -to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks. - -## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ## - -You might want to run your test with -`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace -of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace, -you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met. - -## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ## - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ## - -When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information -(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and -etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google -Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant -expectations. - -Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, -and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are -however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_. -The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information. - -## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ## - -Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a -virtual destructor? - -Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is -virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following -code: - -``` -class Base { - public: - // Not virtual, but should be. - ~Base() { ... } - ... -}; - -class Derived : public Base { - public: - ... - private: - std::string value_; -}; - -... - Base* p = new Derived; - ... - delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not - // - value_ is leaked. -``` - -By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly -called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker -will be happy. - -## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ## - -When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the -// reverse order. This sucks big time!!! -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's -intent. - -By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular -order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be -explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's -easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it -harder to do so. - -There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either -put the expectations in sequence: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations -// in their natural order. -{ - InSequence s; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the -expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this -allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early -(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase) -and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock -searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be -possible. - -## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ## - -When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the -latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the -warning. - -Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's -constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from -test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which -are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up -part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's -no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If -we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs -may creep in unnoticed. - -If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(...); -``` - -instead of - -``` -ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillByDefault(...); -``` - -This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be -printed. - -Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag. -If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less -verbose level. - -## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ## - -If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not -supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own -actions using -[MakeAction()](CookBook.md#writing-new-actions) or -[MakePolymorphicAction()](CookBook.md#writing_new_polymorphic_actions), -or you can write a stub function and invoke it using -[Invoke()](CookBook.md#using-functions_methods_functors). - -## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ## - -What?! I think it's beautiful. :-) - -While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some -extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it -has. - -Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument: -``` -virtual int GetSize(const map& m); -``` - -Using the proposed syntax, it would be: -``` -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map& m); -``` - -Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that -`const map& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work -around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but -that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this -problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair -of parentheses: -``` -// This compiles fine. -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map& m)); -``` - -You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected -comma, but that's much rarer. - -Other advantages include: - 1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax. - 1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it. - 1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`! - -## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ## - -You can, but you need to make some changes. - -In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, -it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less -flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better -off defining a small interface and call the function through that -interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work -initially, but usually pays for itself quickly. - -This Google Testing Blog -[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) -says it excellently. Check it out. - -## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ## - -I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-) - -With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be -tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and -sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in -the latter case? - -When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and -assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an -expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing". - -Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: -instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects -verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon -as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the -error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to -do than state-based testing. - -If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to -simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. -Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for -mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think -that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your -problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-) - -## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ## - -By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. - -What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any -expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not -interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called -any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say -it's not OK to call the function! - -What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but -forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While -one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and -prints you a note. - -So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any -uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make -your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments -when an uninteresting call is encountered. - -## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ## - -Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient -for your circumstance. - -Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it -using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in -functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining -`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is -easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of -functions the action can be used in, and implementing -`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of -`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example. - -## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ## - -You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return -when the mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the -side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You -need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`. - -See this [recipe](CookBook.md#mocking_side_effects) for more details and an example. - - -## My question is not in your FAQ! ## - -If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are -some other resources you can use: - - 1. read other [documentation](Documentation.md), - 1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics), - 1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.). - -Please note that creating an issue in the -[issue tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues) is _not_ -a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a -very small number of people. - -When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the -following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's -not enough information in your question): - - * the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version), - * your operating system, - * the name and version of your compiler, - * the complete command line flags you give to your compiler, - * the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation), - * the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/KnownIssues.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/KnownIssues.md deleted file mode 100644 index adadf51..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/KnownIssues.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,19 +0,0 @@ -As any non-trivial software system, Google Mock has some known limitations and problems. We are working on improving it, and welcome your help! The follow is a list of issues we know about. - - - -## README contains outdated information on Google Mock's compatibility with other testing frameworks ## - -The `README` file in release 1.1.0 still says that Google Mock only works with Google Test. Actually, you can configure Google Mock to work with any testing framework you choose. - -## Tests failing on machines using Power PC CPUs (e.g. some Macs) ## - -`gmock_output_test` and `gmock-printers_test` are known to fail with Power PC CPUs. This is due to portability issues with these tests, and is not an indication of problems in Google Mock itself. You can safely ignore them. - -## Failed to resolve libgtest.so.0 in tests when built against installed Google Test ## - -This only applies if you manually built and installed Google Test, and then built a Google Mock against it (either explicitly, or because gtest-config was in your path post-install). In this situation, Libtool has a known issue with certain systems' ldconfig setup: - -http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.automake.general/9025 - -This requires a manual run of "sudo ldconfig" after the "sudo make install" for Google Test before any binaries which link against it can be executed. This isn't a bug in our install, but we should at least have documented it or hacked a work-around into our install. We should have one of these solutions in our next release. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/README.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1bc57b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +# Content Moved + +We are working on updates to the GoogleTest documentation, which has moved to +the top-level [docs](../../docs) directory. diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md deleted file mode 100644 index 3c7bed4..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,525 +0,0 @@ - - -# Defining a Mock Class # - -## Mocking a Normal Class ## - -Given -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual ~Foo(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0; - virtual string Describe(int type) = 0; - virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as -``` -#include - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count)); -}; -``` - -To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls, -or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures: -``` -NiceMock nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -StrictMock strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -``` - -## Mocking a Class Template ## - -To mock -``` -template -class StackInterface { - public: - ... - virtual ~StackInterface(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: -``` -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - public: - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ## - -If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you -can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros -described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling -convention as the first argument to the macro. For example, -``` - MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y)); -``` -where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `` on Windows. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # - -The typical flow is: - 1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted. - 1. Create the mock objects. - 1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects. - 1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?). - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. - 1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here is an example: -``` -using ::testing::Return; // #1 - -TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) { - MockFoo foo; // #2 - - ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3 - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - // ... other default actions ... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4 - .Times(3) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5")); - // ... other expectations ... - - EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5 -} // #6 -``` - -# Setting Default Actions # - -Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that -returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. - -To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally: -``` -using ::testing::DefaultValue; - -DefaultValue::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned. -// ... use the mocks ... -DefaultValue::Clear(); // Resets the default value. -``` - -To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`: -``` -ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .WillByDefault(action); -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be -called? What will it do?): -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .Times(cardinality) ? - .InSequence(sequences) * - .After(expectations) * - .WillOnce(action) * - .WillRepeatedly(action) ? - .RetiresOnSaturation(); ? -``` - -If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be: - - * `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`; - * `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or - * `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0. - -A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time. - -# Matchers # - -A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside -`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value -directly: - -| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. | -|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------| -| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. | - -Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are -divided into several categories: - -## Wildcard ## -|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.| -|:--|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`A()` or `An()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. | - -## Generic Comparison ## - -|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`| -|:---------------------|:------------------| -|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`| -|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` | -|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`| -|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` | -|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`| -|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).| -|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).| -|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.| -|`TypedEq(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.| - -Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's -modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` -doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`, -e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure -`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your -matcher will be changed. - -## Floating-Point Matchers ## - -|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. | - -The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They -automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute -value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to -the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to -return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as -equal, which is often what a user wants. - -## String Matchers ## - -The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object: - -|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.| -|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. | -|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. | -|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.| -|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. | -|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. | -|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.| -|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. | -|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. | - -`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide -strings as well. - -## Container Matchers ## - -Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line, -match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use: - -| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -|:--------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)`|`argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed.| -|`ElementsAreArray(array)` or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)`|The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from a C-style array.| -| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. | - -These matchers can also match: - - 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and - 1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)). - -where the array may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays). - -## Member Matchers ## - -|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| -|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.| -|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. | -|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| - -## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ## - -|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.| -|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Pointer Matchers ## - -|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.| -|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Multiargument Matchers ## - -These are matchers on tuple types. They can be used in -`.With()`. The following can be used on functions with two
-arguments `x` and `y`: - -|`Eq()`|`x == y`| -|:-----|:-------| -|`Ge()`|`x >= y`| -|`Gt()`|`x > y` | -|`Le()`|`x <= y`| -|`Lt()`|`x < y` | -|`Ne()`|`x != y`| - -You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments -(or reorder them) to participate in the matching: - -|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.| -|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Args(m)`|The `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments match `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Contains(5))`.| - -## Composite Matchers ## - -You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers: - -|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------| -|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -## Adapters for Matchers ## - -|`MatcherCast(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher`.| -|:------------------|:--------------------------------------| -|`SafeMatcherCast(m)`| [safely casts](V1_5_CookBook#Casting_Matchers.md) matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | -|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.| - -## Matchers as Predicates ## - -|`Matches(m)`|a unary functor that returns `true` if the argument matches `m`.| -|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------| -|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|returns `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`.| -|`Value(x, m)`|returns `true` if the value of `x` matches `m`. | - -## Defining Matchers ## - -| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. | -|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------| -| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. | -| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, "is between %(a)s and %(b)s") { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. | - -**Notes:** - - 1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - 1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). - 1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string. - -## Matchers as Test Assertions ## - -|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestPrimer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.| -|:---------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -# Actions # - -**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked. - -## Returning a Value ## - -|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.| -|:---------|:----------------------------------| -|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. | -|`ReturnArg()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`ReturnNew(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.| -|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. | -|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. | - -## Side Effects ## - -|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.| -|:-------------------------|:--------------------------| -| `DeleteArg()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. | -| `SaveArg(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SetArgReferee(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | -|`SetArgumentPointee(value)`|Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`SetArrayArgument(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.| -|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.| -|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.| - -## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ## - -|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.| -|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. | -|`InvokeArgument(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.| - -The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value -of the action. - -When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`: -``` - double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); } - ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance)); -``` - -In `InvokeArgument(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example, -``` - InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo)) -``` -calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference. - -## Default Action ## - -|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).| -|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------| - -**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error. - -## Composite Actions ## - -|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. | -|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. | -|`WithArg(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithArgs(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. | - -## Defining Actions ## - -| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. | -|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. | -| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. | - -The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - -# Cardinalities # - -These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called: - -|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.| -|:------------|:----------------------------------------------| -|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. | -|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. | -|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.| -|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.| - -# Expectation Order # - -By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some -or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two -ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or -together. - -## The After Clause ## - -``` -using ::testing::Expectation; -... -Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX()); -Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY()); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(init_x, init_y); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and -`InitY()` have been called. - -If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you -write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them: - -``` -using ::testing::ExpectationSet; -... -ExpectationSet all_inits; -for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) { - all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i)); -} -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(all_inits); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been -initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized -before the others). - -Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't -affect the meaning of the `.After()`. - -## Sequences ## - -When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to -specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given -each expectation in the chain a different name. All expected
-calls in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -specified. - -``` -using ::testing::Sequence; -Sequence s1, s2; -... -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset()) - .InSequence(s1, s2) - .WillOnce(Return(true)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize()) - .InSequence(s1) - .WillOnce(Return(1)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A())) - .InSequence(s2) - .WillOnce(Return("dummy")); -``` -says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_ -`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order. - -To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently: -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -{ - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; -} -``` -says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in -strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.) - -# Verifying and Resetting a Mock # - -Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier: -``` -using ::testing::Mock; -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj); -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL(); -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj); -``` - -You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't -need to be verified: -``` -Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj); -``` - -# Mock Classes # - -Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template -``` -class MockFunction { - public: - MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An)); -}; -``` -See this [recipe](V1_5_CookBook#Using_Check_Points.md) for one application of it. - -# Flags # - -| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. | -|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------| -| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md deleted file mode 100644 index 26e153c..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3250 +0,0 @@ - - -You can find recipes for using Google Mock here. If you haven't yet, -please read the [ForDummies](V1_5_ForDummies.md) document first to make sure you understand -the basics. - -**Note:** Google Mock lives in the `testing` name space. For -readability, it is recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in -your file before using the name `Foo` defined by Google Mock. We omit -such `using` statements in this page for brevity, but you should do it -in your own code. - -# Creating Mock Classes # - -## Mocking Private or Protected Methods ## - -You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD*`) in a -`public:` section of the mock class, regardless of the method being -mocked being `public`, `protected`, or `private` in the base class. -This allows `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function -from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change -the access level of a virtual function in the base class.) Example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - ... - virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0; - - protected: - virtual void Resume(); - - private: - virtual int GetTimeOut(); -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Transform, bool(Gadget* g)); - - // The following must be in the public section, even though the - // methods are protected or private in the base class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Resume, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(GetTimeOut, int()); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Overloaded Methods ## - -You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required: - -``` -class Foo { - ... - - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo. - virtual ~Foo(); - - // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments. - virtual int Add(Element x); - virtual int Add(int times, Element x); - - // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object. - virtual Bar& GetBar(); - virtual const Bar& GetBar() const; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Add, int(int times, Element x); - - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -``` - -**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the -compiler will give you a warning about some methods in the base class -being hidden. To fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - using Foo::Add; - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x); - ... -}; -``` - -## Mocking Class Templates ## - -To mock a class template, append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: - -``` -template -class StackInterface { - ... - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface. - virtual ~StackInterface(); - - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; - -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Nonvirtual Methods ## - -Google Mock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in what we call _hi-perf -dependency injection_. - -In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real -class, your mock class will be _unrelated_ to the real class, but -contain methods with the same signatures. The syntax for mocking -non-virtual methods is the _same_ as mocking virtual methods: - -``` -// A simple packet stream class. None of its members is virtual. -class ConcretePacketStream { - public: - void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet); - const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const; - size_t NumberOfPackets() const; - ... -}; - -// A mock packet stream class. It inherits from no other, but defines -// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets(). -class MockPacketStream { - public: - MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(GetPacket, const Packet*(size_t packet_number)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(NumberOfPackets, size_t()); - ... -}; -``` - -Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the -real class. That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it. - -Next, you need a way to say that you want to use -`ConcretePacketStream` in production code, and use `MockPacketStream` -in tests. Since the functions are not virtual and the two classes are -unrelated, you must specify your choice at _compile time_ (as opposed -to run time). - -One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet -stream. More specifically, you will give your code a template type -argument for the type of the packet stream. In production, you will -instantiate your template with `ConcretePacketStream` as the type -argument. In tests, you will instantiate the same template with -`MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write: - -``` -template -void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... } - -template -class PacketReader { - public: - void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num); -}; -``` - -Then you can use `CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in production code, and use -`CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in tests. - -``` - MockPacketStream mock_stream; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...; - .. set more expectations on mock_stream ... - PacketReader reader(&mock_stream); - ... exercise reader ... -``` - -## Mocking Free Functions ## - -It's possible to use Google Mock to mock a free function (i.e. a -C-style function or a static method). You just need to rewrite your -code to use an interface (abstract class). - -Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, -introduce an interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls -the free function: - -``` -class FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0; -}; - -class File : public FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) { - return OpenFile(path, mode); - } -}; -``` - -Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's -easy to mock out the function. - -This may seem much hassle, but in practice you often have multiple -related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the -per-function syntactic overhead will be much lower. - -If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by -virtual functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can -combine this with the recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods.md). - -## Nice Mocks and Strict Mocks ## - -If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, Google Mock -will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is: - - * New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called. - * However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, he can add an `EXPECT_CALL()` to suppress the warning. - -However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call" -warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all -of them as errors. Google Mock lets you make the decision on a -per-mock-object basis. - -Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`: - -``` -TEST(...) { - MockFoo mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, it will be -reported by Google Mock as a warning. However, if you rewrite your -test to use `NiceMock` instead, the warning will be gone, -resulting in a cleaner test output: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -`NiceMock` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used -wherever `MockFoo` is accepted. - -It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as -`NiceMock` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo(5, "hi"); // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi"). - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all -uninteresting calls failures: - -``` -using ::testing::StrictMock; - -TEST(...) { - StrictMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... - - // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() - // is called. -} -``` - -There are some caveats though (I don't like them just as much as the -next guy, but sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations): - - 1. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only work for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD*` family of macros **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. `NiceMock >`) is **not** supported. - 1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml). - 1. During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is _not_ nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.) - -Finally, you should be **very cautious** when using this feature, as the -decision you make applies to **all** future changes to the mock -class. If an important change is made in the interface you are mocking -(and thus in the mock class), it could break your tests (if you use -`StrictMock`) or let bugs pass through without a warning (if you use -`NiceMock`). Therefore, try to specify the mock's behavior using -explicit `EXPECT_CALL` first, and only turn to `NiceMock` or -`StrictMock` as the last resort. - -## Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code ## - -Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly -uninteresting. For example, - -``` -class LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, - const struct tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0; -}; -``` - -This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (let's -say that the `message` argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock -it as is, using the mock will be awkward. If, however, we try to -simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all clients depending on -it, which is often infeasible. - -The trick is to re-dispatch the method in the mock class: - -``` -class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) { - // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and - // log message. - Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len)); - } - - // Implements the mock method: - // - // void Log(LogSeverity severity, - // const string& file_path, - // const string& message); - MOCK_METHOD3(Log, void(LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path, - const string& message)); -}; -``` - -By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make -the mock class much more user-friendly. - -## Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes ## - -Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement -interfaces. In order to test your code that uses such a class (let's -call it `Concrete`), you may be tempted to make the methods of -`Concrete` virtual and then mock it. - -Try not to do that. - -Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an -extension point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This -weakens your control on the class because now it's harder to maintain -the class' invariants. You should make a function virtual only when -there is a valid reason for a subclass to override it. - -Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight -coupling between the class and the tests - any small change in the -class may invalidate your tests and make test maintenance a pain. - -To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding -to interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code -would define an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that -interface as an adaptor on top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily -mock that interface to observe how your code is doing. - -This technique incurs some overhead: - - * You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem). - * There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn. - -However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better -testability: - - * `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way, which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more productive. - * If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be insulated from this change. - -Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they -will end up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally -understandable. However, there are two reasons why it may not be the -case: - - * Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the same code. - * If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it, just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib` sub-directory) and let many projects use it. - -You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular -problem, but I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been -practicing this for a long time and it's a proven effective technique -applicable in a wide variety of situations. :-) - -## Delegating Calls to a Fake ## - -Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an -interface. For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo() {} - virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0; - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0; -}; - -class FakeFoo : public Foo { - public: - virtual char DoThis(int n) { - return (n > 0) ? '+' : - (n < 0) ? '-' : '0'; - } - - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) { - *p = strlen(s); - } -}; -``` - -Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations -on it. However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default -behavior, as duplicating it in the mock object is, well, a lot of -work. - -When you define the mock class using Google Mock, you can have it -delegate its default action to a fake class you already have, using -this pattern: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Normal mock method definitions using Google Mock. - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, char(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThat, void(const char* s, int* p)); - - // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object. - // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements. - void DelegateToFake() { - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_, _)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThat)); - } - private: - FakeFoo fake_; // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock. -}; -``` - -With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember -that if you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or -`EXPECT_CALL()`, the fake will be called upon to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) { - MockFoo foo; - foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation. - - // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any. - - // No action specified, meaning to use the default action. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _)); - - int n = 0; - EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked. - foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked. - EXPECT_EQ(2, n); -} -``` - -**Some tips:** - - * If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`. - * In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake implementation you intend to use. - * The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`), see the "Selecting Between Overloaded Functions" section on this page; to disambiguate a fake function (the one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the function's type. - * Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong. Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up. Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an intermediate step when you are refactoring your code. - -Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on -why it may be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for -low-level system operations. In particular, it does file and I/O -operations. And suppose you want to test how your code uses `System` -to do I/O, and you just want the file operations to work normally. If -you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll have to provide a fake -implementation for the file operation part, which suggests that -`System` is taking on too many roles. - -Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface -and split `System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock -`IOOps` without mocking `FileOps`. - -## Delegating Calls to a Real Object ## - -When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes -their behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This -difference could be either intentional (as in simulating an error such -that you can test the error handling code) or unintentional. If your -mocks have different behaviors than the real objects by mistake, you -could end up with code that passes the tests but fails in production. - -You can use the _delegating-to-real_ technique to ensure that your -mock has the same behavior as the real object while retaining the -ability to validate calls. This technique is very similar to the -delegating-to-fake technique, the difference being that we use a real -object instead of a fake. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AtLeast; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MockFoo() { - // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object. - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis()) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThat)); - ... - } - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, ...); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, ...); - ... - private: - Foo real_; -}; -... - - MockFoo mock; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis()) - .Times(3); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi")) - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - ... use mock in test ... -``` - -With this, Google Mock will verify that your code made the right calls -(with the right arguments, in the right order, called the right number -of times, etc), and a real object will answer the calls (so the -behavior will be the same as in production). This gives you the best -of both worlds. - -## Delegating Calls to a Parent Class ## - -Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure -virtual. In reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method -that is not pure (i.e, it already has an implementation). For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo(); - - virtual void Pure(int n) = 0; - virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... } -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); -}; -``` - -Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of -`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub -action, or perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all -(but it would be oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class -whenever you don't need to mock one of its methods). - -The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the -real methods in the base class: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); - - // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo. - int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); } -}; -``` - -Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`: - -``` -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -(Why don't we just write `Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concrete)`? If you do -that, `MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite -recursion) since `Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ -works.) - -# Using Matchers # - -## Matching Argument Values Exactly ## - -You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)) - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar)); -``` - -## Using Simple Matchers ## - -You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5))) // The argument must be >= 5. - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull())); - // The second argument must not be NULL. -``` - -A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::NotNull; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull())); -``` - -## Combining Matchers ## - -You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`, -`AnyOf()`, and `Not()`: - -``` -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::HasSubstr; -using ::testing::Ne; -using ::testing::Not; -... - // The argument must be > 5 and != 10. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5), - Ne(10)))); - - // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah". - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")), - NULL)); -``` - -## Casting Matchers ## - -Google Mock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler -can catch your mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for -example, if you use `Eq(5)` to match a `string` argument). Good for -you! - -Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler -to give you some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for -`long` and the argument you want to match is `int`. While the two -types aren't exactly the same, there is nothing really wrong with -using a `Matcher` to match an `int` - after all, we can first -convert the `int` argument to a `long` before giving it to the -matcher. - -To support this need, Google Mock gives you the -`SafeMatcherCast(m)` function. It casts a matcher `m` to type -`Matcher`. To ensure safety, Google Mock checks that (let `U` be the -type `m` accepts): - - 1. Type `T` can be implicitly cast to type `U`; - 1. When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`); and - 1. When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value). - -The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met. - -Here's one example: - -``` -using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; - -// A base class and a child class. -class Base { ... }; -class Derived : public Base { ... }; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, void(Derived* derived)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - // m is a Matcher we got from somewhere. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast(m))); -``` - -If you find `SafeMatcherCast(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar -function `MatcherCast(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works -as long as you can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`. - -`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system -(`static_cast` isn't always safe as it could throw away information, -for example), so be careful not to misuse/abuse it. - -## Selecting Between Overloaded Functions ## - -If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may -need some help on which overloaded version it is. - -To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, -use the `Const()` argument wrapper. - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar1, bar2; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) // The non-const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1)); - EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar()) // The const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2)); -``` - -(`Const()` is defined by Google Mock and returns a `const` reference -to its argument.) - -To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments -but different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type -of a matcher, either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher()`, or -using a matcher whose type is fixed (`TypedEq`, `An()`, -etc): - -``` -using ::testing::An; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::TypedEq; - -class MockPrinter : public Printer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(char c)); -}; - -TEST(PrinterTest, Print) { - MockPrinter printer; - - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An())); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher(Lt(5)))); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq('a'))); // void Print(char); - - printer.Print(3); - printer.Print(6); - printer.Print('a'); -} -``` - -## Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments ## - -When a mock method is called, the _last_ matching expectation that's -still active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you -can make a method do different things depending on its argument values -like this: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - // The default case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('b')); - - // The more specific case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5))) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('a')); -``` - -Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will -be returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned. - -## Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole ## - -Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For -example, we may want to say that the first argument must be less than -the second argument. The `With()` clause allows us to match -all arguments of a mock function as a whole. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Ne; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _)) - .With(Lt()); -``` - -says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be -less than the second argument. - -The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type -`Matcher >`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the -types of the function arguments. - -You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The -two forms are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable -than `.With(Lt())`. - -You can use `Args(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments -against `m`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Args; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah(_, _, _)) - .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt()))); -``` - -says that `Blah()` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where -`x < y < z`. - -As a convenience and example, Google Mock provides some matchers for -2-tuples, including the `Lt()` matcher above. See the [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md) for -the complete list. - -## Using Matchers as Predicates ## - -Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also -knows how to describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates -as arguments (e.g. those defined in STL's `` header), and -it would be a shame if Google Mock matchers are not allowed to -participate. - -Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is -expected by wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example, - -``` -#include -#include - -std::vector v; -... -// How many elements in v are >= 10? -const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10))); -``` - -Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using -Google Mock, this gives you a way to conveniently construct composite -predicates (doing the same using STL's `` header is just -painful). For example, here's a predicate that's satisfied by any -number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50: - -``` -Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50))) -``` - -## Using Matchers in Google Test Assertions ## - -Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe -themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. It's -called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`: - -``` - ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher); // Asserts that value matches matcher. - EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher); // The non-fatal version. -``` - -For example, in a Google Test test you can write: - -``` -#include - -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Le; -using ::testing::MatchesRegex; -using ::testing::StartsWith; -... - - EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello")); - EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+")); - ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10))); -``` - -which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and -`Baz()`, and verifies that: - - * `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`. - * `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`. - * `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10]. - -The nice thing about these macros is that _they read like -English_. They generate informative messages too. For example, if the -first `EXPECT_THAT()` above fails, the message will be something like: - -``` -Value of: Foo() - Actual: "Hi, world!" -Expected: starts with "Hello" -``` - -**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was stolen from the -[Hamcrest](http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/) project, which adds -`assertThat()` to JUnit. - -## Using Predicates as Matchers ## - -Google Mock provides a built-in set of matchers. In case you find them -lacking, you can use an arbitray unary predicate function or functor -as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type -you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` -function, for example: - -``` -using ::testing::Truly; - -int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; } -... - - // Bar() must be called with an even number. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven))); -``` - -Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return -`bool`. It works as long as the return value can be used as the -condition in statement `if (condition) ...`. - -## Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable ## - -When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, Google Mock saves -away a copy of `bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, Google Mock -compares the argument to `Foo()` with the saved copy of `bar`. This -way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being modified or destroyed -after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true when you use -matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on. - -But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You -could define your own matcher function and use it with `Truly()`, as -the previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get -away from it if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after -the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. Just tell Google Mock that it should -save a reference to `bar`, instead of a copy of it. Here's how: - -``` -using ::testing::Eq; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar)))); - - // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar)))); -``` - -Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the -`EXPECT_CALL()`, or the result is undefined. - -## Validating a Member of an Object ## - -Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When -matching the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object -against a fixed object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, -you may need to validate a certain member variable or the result of a -certain getter method of the object. You can do this with `Field()` -and `Property()`. More specifically, - -``` -Field(&Foo::bar, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable -satisfies matcher `m`. - -``` -Property(&Foo::baz, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns -a value that satisfies matcher `m`. - -For example: - -> | `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. | -|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------| -> | `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. | - -Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no -argument and be declared as `const`. - -BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to -objects. For instance, - -``` -Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) -``` - -matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, -the match will always fail regardless of the inner matcher. - -What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? -Remember that there is `AllOf()`. - -## Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument ## - -C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers -like `NULL`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a -pointer, but what if you want to make sure the value _pointed to_ by -the pointer, instead of the pointer itself, has a certain property? -Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)` matcher. - -`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer iff `m` matches the value the pointer -points to. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Pointee; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3)))); -``` - -expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value -greater than or equal to 3. - -One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as -a match failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of - -``` - AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m)) -``` - -without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test. - -Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers -**and** smart pointers (`linked_ptr`, `shared_ptr`, `scoped_ptr`, and -etc)? - -What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use -nested `Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example, -`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer -that points to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...). - -## Testing a Certain Property of an Object ## - -Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain -property, but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want -good error messages, you should define a matcher. If you want to do it -quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function. - -Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, -which has an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you -want to constrain that the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` -value is a given number. Here's how you can define a matcher to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum) - : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_; - } - private: - const int expected_sum_; -}; - -inline Matcher BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) { - return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum)); -} - -... - - EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...; -``` - -## Matching Containers ## - -Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to -a mock function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL -containers support the `==` operator, you can write -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. - -Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the -first element must be an exact match, but the second element can be -any positive number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often -have a small number of elements, and having to define the expected -container out-of-line is a bit of a hassle. - -You can use the `ElementsAre()` matcher in such cases: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ElementsAre; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which -must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -`ElementsAre()` is overloaded to take 0 to 10 arguments. If more are -needed, you can place them in a C-style array and use -`ElementsAreArray()` instead: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - - // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values. - const int expected_vector1[] = { 1, 5, 2, 4, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1))); - - // Or, an array of element matchers. - Matcher expected_vector2 = { 1, Gt(2), _, 3, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2))); -``` - -In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the -array size cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give -`ElementsAreArray()` an additional argument to specify the array size: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count]; - ... fill expected_vector3 with values ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count))); -``` - -**Tips:** - - * `ElementAre*()` works with _any_ container that implements the STL iterator concept (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports `begin()/end()`) and supports `size()`, not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above pattern. - * You can use nested `ElementAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional) containers. - * If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`. - * The order of elements _matters_ for `ElementsAre*()`. Therefore don't use it with containers whose element order is undefined (e.g. `hash_map`). - -## Sharing Matchers ## - -Under the hood, a Google Mock matcher object consists of a pointer to -a ref-counted implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and -very efficient, as only the pointer is copied. When the last matcher -that references the implementation object dies, the implementation -object will be deleted. - -Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again -and again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a -matcher variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example, - -``` - Matcher in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10)); - ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ... -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -## Ignoring Uninteresting Calls ## - -If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't -say anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, -Google Mock will perform its default action to allow the test program -to continue. If you are not happy with the default action taken by -Google Mock, you can override it using `DefaultValue::Set()` -(described later in this document) or `ON_CALL()`. - -Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock -method (via `EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some -expectation. If this function is called but the arguments don't match -any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement, it will be an error. - -## Disallowing Unexpected Calls ## - -If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just -list all the expected calls: - -``` -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10))) - .Times(AnyNumber()); -``` - -A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements will be an error. - -## Expecting Ordered Calls ## - -Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier takes precedence -when Google Mock tries to match a function call with an expectation, -by default calls don't have to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements are written. For example, if the arguments match the -matchers in the third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in the first two, -then the third expectation will be used. - -If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the -expectations, put the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you -define a variable of type `InSequence`: - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::InSequence; - - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_)) - .Times(2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6)); - } -``` - -In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two -calls to `bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are -in turn followed by a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred -out-of-order, Google Mock will report an error. - -## Expecting Partially Ordered Calls ## - -Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can -lead to brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring -before both `B` and `C`, but aren't interested in the relative order -of `B` and `C`. In this case, the test should reflect our real intent, -instead of being overly constraining. - -Google Mock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic -graph) on the calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the -[After](V1_5_CheatSheet#The_After_Clause.md) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. - -Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the -`InSequence` class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less -flexible than `After()`, but more convenient when you have long chains -of sequential calls, as it doesn't require you to come up with -different names for the expectations in the chains. Here's how it -works: - -If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an -edge from node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get -a DAG. We use the term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this -DAG. Now, if we decompose the DAG into sequences, we just need to know -which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()` belongs to in order to be able to -reconstruct the orginal DAG. - -So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two -things: first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each -`EXPECT_CALL()` say which `Sequence` objects it is part -of. Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -written. For example, - -``` - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, A()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, B()) - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, C()) - .InSequence(s2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, D()) - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> -C -> D`): - -``` - +---> B - | - A ---| - | - +---> C ---> D -``` - -This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before -D. There's no restriction about the order other than these. - -## Controlling When an Expectation Retires ## - -When a mock method is called, Google Mock only consider expectations -that are still active. An expectation is active when created, and -becomes inactive (aka _retires_) when a call that has to occur later -has occurred. For example, in - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty.")) // #2 - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found.")) // #3 - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning -`"File too large."` is logged after this, it will be an error. - -Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's -saturated. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")); // #2 -``` - -says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File -too large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will -match again and result in an upper-bound-violated error. - -If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as -soon as it becomes saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #2 - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the -message `"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second -will match #1 - there will be no error. - -# Using Actions # - -## Returning References from Mock Methods ## - -If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use -`ReturnRef()` instead of `Return()` to return a result: - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar)); -``` - -## Combining Actions ## - -Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's -fine. `DoAll()` allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only -the return value of the last action in the sequence will be used. - -``` -using ::testing::DoAll; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(int n)); -}; -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1, - action_2, - ... - action_n)); -``` - -## Mocking Side Effects ## - -Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but -via side effects. For example, it may change some global state or -modify an output argument. To mock side effects, in general you can -define your own action by implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`. - -If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in -`SetArgumentPointee()` action is convenient: - -``` -using ::testing::SetArgumentPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(bool mutate, int* value)); - ... -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _)) - .WillOnce(SetArgumentPointee<1>(5)); -``` - -In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 -to the `int` variable pointed to by argument #1 -(0-based). - -`SetArgumentPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the -value you pass to it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and -alive. The implication however is that the value must have a copy -constructor and assignment operator. - -If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain -`SetArgumentPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Return; -using ::testing::SetArgumentPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(MutateInt, bool(int* value)); -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgumentPointee<0>(5), - Return(true))); -``` - -If the output argument is an array, use the -`SetArrayArgument(first, last)` action instead. It copies the -elements in source range `[first, last)` to the array pointed to by -the `N`-th (0-based) argument: - -``` -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; - -class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(int* values, int num_values)); - ... -}; -... - - MockArrayMutator mutator; - int values[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5)); -``` - -This also works when the argument is an output iterator: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SeArrayArgument; - -class MockRolodex : public Rolodex { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(GetNames, void(std::back_insert_iterator >)); - ... -}; -... - - MockRolodex rolodex; - vector names; - names.push_back("George"); - names.push_back("John"); - names.push_back("Thomas"); - EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end())); -``` - -## Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State ## - -If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use `::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the call: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; - -... - { - InSequence seq; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(true)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush()); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(false)); - } - my_mock.FlushIfDirty(); -``` - -This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called and return `false` afterwards. - -If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable and make a mock method get its return value from that variable: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SaveArg; -using ::testing::Return; - -ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; } -... - int previous_value = 0; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value)); - my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue(); -``` - -Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last `UpdateValue()` call. - -## Setting the Default Value for a Return Type ## - -If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by -default it will return 0 when invoked. You only need to specify an -action if this default value doesn't work for you. - -Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want -to specify a default value for types Google Mock doesn't know -about. You can do this using the `::testing::DefaultValue` class -template: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(CalculateBar, Bar()); -}; -... - - Bar default_bar; - // Sets the default return value for type Bar. - DefaultValue::Set(default_bar); - - MockFoo foo; - - // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default - // return value works for us. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar()); - - foo.CalculateBar(); // This should return default_bar. - - // Unsets the default return value. - DefaultValue::Clear(); -``` - -Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you -tests hard to understand. We recommend you to use this feature -judiciously. For example, you may want to make sure the `Set()` and -`Clear()` calls are right next to the code that uses your mock. - -## Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method ## - -You've learned how to change the default value of a given -type. However, this may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you -have two mock methods with the same return type and you want them to -have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()` macro allows you to -customize your mock's behavior at the method level: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .WillByDefault(Return(-1)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0)) - .WillByDefault(Return(0)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0))) - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .Times(AnyNumber()); - - foo.Sign(5); // This should return 1. - foo.Sign(-9); // This should return -1. - foo.Sign(0); // This should return 0. -``` - -As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` -statements, the news order take precedence over the older ones. In -other words, the **last** one that matches the function arguments will -be used. This matching order allows you to set up the common behavior -in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and -specialize the mock's behavior later. - -## Using Functions/Methods/Functors as Actions ## - -If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can easily use an existing -function, method, or functor as an action: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Sum, int(int x, int y)); - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int x)); -}; - -int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } - -class Helper { - public: - bool ComplexJob(int x); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(CalculateSum)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob)); - - foo.Sum(5, 6); // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6). - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10); -``` - -The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be -_compatible_ with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the -latter's arguments can be implicitly converted to the corresponding -arguments of the former, and the former's return type can be -implicitly converted to that of the latter. So, you can invoke -something whose type is _not_ exactly the same as the mock function, -as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh? - -## Invoking a Function/Method/Functor Without Arguments ## - -`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It -passes the mock function's arguments to the function or functor being -invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work -with. If the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the -arguments, it can simply ignore them. - -Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function -without the arguments of the mock function. `Invoke()` allows her to -do that using a wrapper function that throws away the arguments before -invoking an underlining nullary function. Needless to say, this can be -tedious and obscures the intent of the test. - -`InvokeWithoutArgs()` solves this problem. It's like `Invoke()` except -that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the -callee. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int n)); -}; - -bool Job1() { ... } -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1)); - - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1(). -``` - -## Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function ## - -Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer or a functor -(in other words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g. - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, bool(int n, bool (*fp)(int))); -}; -``` - -and you may want to invoke this callable argument: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(...); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no -lambda (yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you -really? - -Well, Google Mock has an action to solve _exactly_ this problem: - -``` - InvokeArgument(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m) -``` - -will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, -with `arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is -a function pointer or a functor, Google Mock handles them both. - -With that, you could write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5)); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just -wrap it inside `ByRef()`: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(bool (*fp)(int, const Helper&))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper))); - // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it, - // will be passed to the callable. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** -wrap the argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will _make a -copy_ of the argument, and pass a _reference to the copy_, instead of -a reference to the original value, to the callable. This is especially -handy when the argument is a temporary value: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi"))); - // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer - // DoThat() receives. Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are - // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes. Yet - // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values - // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action. -``` - -## Ignoring an Action's Result ## - -Sometimes you have an action that returns _something_, but you need an -action that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock -function that returns `void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in -`DoAll()` and it's not the last in the list). `IgnoreResult()` lets -you do that. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Return; - -int Process(const MyData& data); -string DoSomething(); - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Abc, void(const MyData& data)); - MOCK_METHOD0(Xyz, bool()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_)) - // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process)); - // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs - // to return void. - .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Invoke(Process))); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz()) - .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(Invoke(DoSomething)), - // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns. - Return(true))); -``` - -Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already -returns `void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors. - -## Selecting an Action's Arguments ## - -Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and -you have a custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is -called. Trouble is, the custom action only wants three arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - MOCK_METHOD7(Foo, bool(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight)); -... - -bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) { - return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0; -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Uh, won't compile. :-( -``` - -To please the compiler God, you can to define an "adaptor" that has -the same signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the -right arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight) { - return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Now it works. -``` - -But isn't this awkward? - -Google Mock provides a generic _action adaptor_, so you can spend your -time minding more important business than writing your own -adaptors. Here's the syntax: - -``` - WithArgs(action) -``` - -creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at -the given indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs -it. Using `WithArgs`, our original example can be written as: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::WithArgs; -... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1))); - // No need to define your own adaptor. -``` - -For better readability, Google Mock also gives you: - - * `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes _no_ argument, and - * `WithArg(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes _one_ argument. - -As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic -sugar for `WithoutArgs(Inovke(...))`. - -Here are more tips: - - * The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be `Invoke()` -- it can be anything. - * You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g. `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`. - * You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`. - * The types of the selected arguments do _not_ have to match the signature of the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example, if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work. - -## Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions ## - -The selecting-an-action's-arguments recipe showed us one way to make a -mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit -together. The downside is that wrapping the action in -`WithArgs<...>()` can get tedious for people writing the tests. - -If you are defining a function, method, or functor to be used with -`Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an -alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as -`Unused`. This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in -case the types of the uninteresting arguments change. It could also -increase the chance the action function can be reused. For example, -given - -``` - MOCK_METHOD3(Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y)); - MOCK_METHOD3(Bar, double(int index, double x, double y)); -``` - -instead of - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} - -double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); -``` - -you could write - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Unused; - -double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); -``` - -## Sharing Actions ## - -Just like matchers, a Google Mock action object consists of a pointer -to a ref-counted implementation object. Therefore copying actions is -also allowed and very efficient. When the last action that references -the implementation object dies, the implementation object will be -deleted. - -If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, -you may not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action -doesn't have an internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing -no matter how many times it has been called), you can assign it to an -action variable and use that variable repeatedly. For example: - -``` - Action set_flag = DoAll(SetArgumentPointee<0>(5), - Return(true)); - ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ... -``` - -However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you -share the action object. Suppose you have an action factory -`IncrementCounter(init)` which creates an action that increments and -returns a counter whose initial value is `init`, using two actions -created from the same expression and using a shared action will -exihibit different behaviors. Example: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different - // counter than Bar()'s. -``` - -versus - -``` - Action increment = IncrementCounter(0); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 3 - the counter is shared. -``` - -# Misc Recipes on Using Google Mock # - -## Forcing a Verification ## - -When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically -verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will -generate [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) failures -if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to -worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will -be destoyed. - -How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? -Well, it might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are -testing. Suppose there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the -mock object properly - you could end up with a passing test when -there's actually a bug. - -Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but -its implementation may not be 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want -to _force_ Google Mock to verify a mock object before it is -(hopefully) destructed. You can do this with -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`: - -``` -TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) { - using ::testing::Mock; - - MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo; - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...; - // ... other expectations ... - - // server now owns foo. - MyServer server(foo); - server.ProcessRequest(...); - - // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo, - // this will verify the expectations anyway. - Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo); -} // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here. -``` - -**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a -`bool` to indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for -yes), so you can wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if -there is no point going further when the verification has failed. - -## Using Check Points ## - -Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check -points in your test: at each check point, you verify that all existing -expectations on the mock object have been satisfied, and then you set -some new expectations on it as if it's newly created. This allows you -to work with a mock object in "phases" whose sizes are each -manageable. - -One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may -want to put the object you are testing into a certain state, with the -help from a mock object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear -all expectations on the mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can -set fresh expectations on it. - -As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` -function we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you -are using `ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and -want to clear the default actions as well, use -`Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This function does what -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and returns the -same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on -`mock_object` too. - -Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the -expectations in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" -function at specific places. Then you can verify that the mock -function calls do happen at the right time. For example, if you are -exercising code: - -``` -Foo(1); -Foo(2); -Foo(3); -``` - -and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke -`mock.Bar("a")`, but `Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write: - -``` -using ::testing::MockFunction; - -TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { - MyMock mock; - // Class MockFunction has exactly one mock method. It is named - // Call() and has type F. - MockFunction check; - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - } - Foo(1); - check.Call("1"); - Foo(2); - check.Call("2"); - Foo(3); -} -``` - -The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before -check point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", -and nothing should happen between the two check points. The explicit -check points make it easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which -call to `Foo()`. - -## Mocking Destructors ## - -Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the -right time, e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is -called. We already know that you can specify constraints on the order -of mock function calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor -of the mock function. - -This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special -function with special syntax and special semantics, and the -`MOCK_METHOD0` macro doesn't work for it: - -``` - MOCK_METHOD0(~MockFoo, void()); // Won't compile! -``` - -The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same -effect. First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call -it in the destructor, like this: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - // Add the following two lines to the mock class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Die, void()); - virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); } -}; -``` - -(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another -name.) Now, we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` -object dies to testing when its `Die()` method is called: - -``` - MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo; - MockBar* bar = new MockBar; - ... - { - InSequence s; - - // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B(). - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A()); - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die()); - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B()); - } -``` - -And that's that. - -## Using Google Mock and Threads ## - -**IMPORTANT NOTE:** What we describe in this recipe is **NOT** true yet, -as Google Mock is not currently thread-safe. However, all we need to -make it thread-safe is to implement some synchronization operations in -`` - and then the information below will -become true. - -In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of -code in a single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and -dead locks, and makes debugging your test much easier. - -Yet many programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something -we need to pound on it from more than one thread. Google Mock works -for this purpose too. - -Remember the steps for using a mock: - - 1. Create a mock object `foo`. - 1. Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and `EXPECT_CALL()`. - 1. The code under test calls methods of `foo`. - 1. Optionally, verify and reset the mock. - 1. Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The destructor will automatically verify it. - -If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can -live happily togeter: - - * Execute your _test code_ (as opposed to the code being tested) in _one_ thread. This makes your test easy to follow. - * Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking. - * When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`. Obvious too, huh? - * #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway you want. Google Mock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - unless required by your test logic. - -If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a -mock while another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined -behavior. That's not fun, so don't do it. - -Google Mock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in -the same thread that called the mock function. For example, in - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1)) - .WillOnce(action1); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2)) - .WillOnce(action2); -``` - -if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, -Google Mock will execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread -2. - -Google Mock does _not_ impose a sequence on actions performed in -different threads (doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may -need to cooperate). This means that the execution of `action1` and -`action2` in the above example _may_ interleave. If this is a problem, -you should add proper synchronization logic to `action1` and `action2` -to make the test thread-safe. - - -Also, remember that `DefaultValue` is a global resource that -potentially affects _all_ living mock objects in your -program. Naturally, you won't want to mess with it from multiple -threads or when there still are mocks in action. - -## Controlling How Much Information Google Mock Prints ## - -When Google Mock sees something that has the potential of being an -error (e.g. a mock function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an -uninteresting call, which is allowed but perhaps you forgot to -explicitly ban the call), it prints some warning messages, including -the arguments of the function and the return value. Hopefully this -will remind you to take a look and see if there is indeed a problem. - -Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not -appreciate such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging -your tests or learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, -and wish you could observe every mock call that happens (including -argument values and the return value). Clearly, one size doesn't fit -all. - -You can control how much Google Mock tells you using the -`--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string -with three possible values: - - * `info`: Google Mock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors (most verbose). At this setting, Google Mock will also log any calls to the `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. - * `warning`: Google Mock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose). This is the default. - * `error`: Google Mock will print errors only (least verbose). - -Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your -tests like so: - -``` - ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error"; -``` - -Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable Google Mock serve you better! - -## Running Tests in Emacs ## - -If you build and run your tests in Emacs, the source file locations of -Google Mock and [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) -errors will be highlighted. Just press `` on one of them and -you'll be taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x `` -to jump to the next error. - -To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your -`~/.emacs` file: - -``` -(global-set-key "\M-m" 'compile) ; m is for make -(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error) -(global-set-key [M-up] '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1))) -``` - -Then you can type `M-m` to start a build, or `M-up`/`M-down` to move -back and forth between errors. - -## Fusing Google Mock Source Files ## - -Google Mock's implementation consists of dozens of files (excluding -its own tests). Sometimes you may want them to be packaged up in -fewer files instead, such that you can easily copy them to a new -machine and start hacking there. For this we provide an experimental -Python script `fuse_gmock_files.py` in the `scripts/` directory -(starting with release 1.2.0). Assuming you have Python 2.4 or above -installed on your machine, just go to that directory and run -``` -python fuse_gmock_files.py OUTPUT_DIR -``` - -and you should see an `OUTPUT_DIR` directory being created with files -`gtest/gtest.h`, `gmock/gmock.h`, and `gmock-gtest-all.cc` in it. -These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and -Google Test). Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready -to write tests and use mocks. You can use the -[scrpts/test/Makefile](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/test/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests -against them. - -# Extending Google Mock # - -## Writing New Matchers Quickly ## - -The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers -easily. The syntax: - -``` -MATCHER(name, "description string") { statements; } -``` - -will define a matcher with the given name that executes the -statements, which must return a `bool` to indicate if the match -succeeds. Inside the statements, you can refer to the value being -matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by `arg_type`. - -The description string documents what the matcher does, and is used to -generate the failure message when the match fails. Since a -`MATCHER()` is usually defined in a header file shared by multiple C++ -source files, we require the description to be a C-string _literal_ to -avoid possible side effects. It can be empty (`""`), in which case -Google Mock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the -description. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; } -``` -allows you to write -``` - // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -or, -``` - // Verifies that the value of some_expression is divisible by 7. - EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7()); -``` -If the above assertion fails, it will print something like: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 -``` -where the description `"is divisible by 7"` is automatically calculated from the -matcher name `IsDivisibleBy7`. - -Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument -named `result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a -better definition of `IsDivisibleBy7` is: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { - if ((arg % 7) == 0) - return true; - - *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7); - return false; -} -``` - -With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6) -``` - -You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print _any additional information_ -that can help a user understand the match result. Note that it should -explain why the match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's -obvious) - this is useful when the matcher is used inside -`Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value itself, as -Google Mock already prints it for you. - -**Notes:** - - 1. The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a `bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an `int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will be `unsigned long`; and so on. - 1. Google Mock doesn't guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be invoked. Therefore the matcher logic must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). This requirement must be satisfied no matter how you define the matcher (e.g. using one of the methods described in the following recipes). In particular, a matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the mock object and Google Mock. - -## Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you -can use the macro: -``` -MATCHER_P(name, param_name, "description string") { statements; } -``` - -For example: -``` -MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -``` -will allow you to write: -``` - EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -``` -which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10): -``` - Value of: Blah("a") - Expected: has absolute value 10 - Actual: -9 -``` - -Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -printed, making the message human-friendly. - -In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to -reference the type of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the -body of `MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write -`value_type` to refer to the type of `value`. - -Google Mock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to -`MATCHER_P10` to support multi-parameter matchers: -``` -MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, "description string") { statements; } -``` - -Please note that the custom description string is for a particular -**instance** of the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to -actual values. Therefore usually you'll want the parameter values to -be part of the description. Google Mock lets you do that using -Python-style interpolations. The following syntaxes are supported -currently: - -| `%%` | a single `%` character | -|:-----|:-----------------------| -| `%(*)s` | all parameters of the matcher printed as a tuple | -| `%(foo)s` | value of the matcher parameter named `foo` | - -For example, -``` - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "is in range [%(low)s, %(hi)s]") { - return low <= arg && arg <= hi; - } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the message: -``` - Expected: is in range [4, 6] -``` - -If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will -contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -``` - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the text: -``` - Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -``` - -For the purpose of typing, you can view -``` -MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, "description string") { ... } -``` -as shorthand for -``` -template -FooMatcherPk -Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -``` - -When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of -the parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with -the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -explicitly instantiating the template, as in `Foo(5, false)`. -As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -`arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -is used. - -You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a -variable of type `FooMatcherPk`. This can be -useful when composing matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter -or have only one parameter have special types: you can assign `Foo()` -to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and assign `Foo(p)` to a -`FooMatcherP`-typed variable. - -While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -address. - -You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -``` -MATCHER_P(Blah, a, "description string 1") { ... } -MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, "description string 2") { ... } -``` - -While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining -a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -`MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see -the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher a -lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more -control on the types of the value being matched and the matcher -parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages -that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers -based on parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of -parameters). - -## Writing New Monomorphic Matchers ## - -A matcher of argument type `T` implements -`::testing::MatcherInterface` and does two things: it tests whether a -value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can describe what kind of -values it matches. The latter ability is used for generating readable -error messages when expectations are violated. - -The interface looks like this: - -``` -class MatchResultListener { - public: - ... - // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream - // is NULL. - template - MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x); - - // Returns the underlying ostream. - ::std::ostream* stream(); -}; - -template -class MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual ~MatcherInterface(); - - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener'. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const; -}; -``` - -If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for -example, you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` -describes itself, or you may want your matcher to be polymorphic as -`Eq(value)` is), you can define a matcher to do whatever you want in -two steps: first implement the matcher interface, and then define a -factory function to create a matcher instance. The second step is not -strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher nicer. - -For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is -divisible by 7 and then use it like this: -``` -using ::testing::MakeMatcher; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (n % 7) == 0; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is divisible by 7"; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is not divisible by 7"; - } -}; - -inline Matcher DivisibleBy7() { - return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7())); -``` - -You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional -information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`: - -``` -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const int remainder = n % 7; - if (remainder != 0) { - *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder; - } - return remainder == 0; - } - ... -}; -``` - -Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may general a message like this: -``` -Value of: x -Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2) -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Matchers ## - -You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous -recipe. Just one problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only -works for one particular type of arguments. If you want a -_polymorphic_ matcher that works with arguments of several types (for -instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a `value` as long as `value` == -`x` compiles -- `value` and `x` don't have to share the same type), -you can learn the trick from `` but it's a bit -involved. - -Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher -easily with the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can -define `NotNull()` as an example: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher; - -class NotNullMatcher { - public: - // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class - // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and - // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following. - - // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so - // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. - // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or - // a method template, or even overload it. - template - bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, - MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const { - return p != NULL; - } - - // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. - void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } - - // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. - void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } -}; - -// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class -// to MakePolymorphicMatcher(). Note the return type. -inline PolymorphicMatcher NotNull() { - return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher()); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. -``` - -**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from -`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need -to be virtual. - -Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by -streaming additional information to the `listener` argument in -`MatchAndExplain()`. - -## Writing New Cardinalities ## - -A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell Google Mock how many times -you expect a call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, -you can say `AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`. - -If the built-in set of cardinalities doesn't suit you, you are free to -define your own by implementing the following interface (in namespace -`testing`): - -``` -class CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual ~CardinalityInterface(); - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Describes self to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; -}; -``` - -For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, -you can write - -``` -using ::testing::Cardinality; -using ::testing::CardinalityInterface; -using ::testing::MakeCardinality; - -class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return (call_count % 2) == 0; - } - - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return false; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "called even number of times"; - } -}; - -Cardinality EvenNumber() { - return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3)) - .Times(EvenNumber()); -``` - -## Writing New Actions Quickly ## - -If the built-in actions don't work for you, and you find it -inconvenient to use `Invoke()`, you can use a macro from the `ACTION*` -family to quickly define a new action that can be used in your code as -if it's a built-in action. - -By writing -``` -ACTION(name) { statements; } -``` -in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will -define an action with the given name that executes the statements. -The value returned by `statements` will be used as the return value of -the action. Inside the statements, you can refer to the K-th -(0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`. For example: -``` -ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } -``` -allows you to write -``` -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -arguments. Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: -you'll get a compiler error if `*arg1` doesn't support the `++` -operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock -function's return type. - -Another example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - (*arg2)(5); - Blah(); - *arg1 = 0; - return arg0; -} -``` -defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) -with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument -#1 to 0, and returns argument #0. - -For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following -pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`: - -| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function | -|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| -| `args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function | -| `function_type` | The type of the mock function | - -For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: -``` -int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); -``` -we have: -| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** | -|:-----------------------|:----------------| -| `arg0` | the value of `flag` | -| `arg0_type` | the type `bool` | -| `arg1` | the value of `ptr` | -| `arg1_type` | the type `int*` | -| `args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` | -| `args_type` | the type `std::tr1::tuple` | -| `return_type` | the type `int` | -| `function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` | - -## Writing New Parameterized Actions Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that -we have another macro -``` -ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } -``` - -For example, -``` -ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -``` -will allow you to write -``` -// Returns argument #0 + 5. -... WillOnce(Add(5)); -``` - -For convenience, we use the term _arguments_ for the values used to -invoke the mock function, and the term _parameters_ for the values -used to instantiate an action. - -Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. -Suppose the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the -Google-Mock-defined symbol `param_type` to refer to the type of the -parameter as inferred by the compiler. For example, in the body of -`ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for the type of `n`. - -Google Mock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support -multi-parameter actions. For example, -``` -ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { - double dx = arg0 - x; - double dy = arg1 - y; - return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); -} -``` -lets you write -``` -... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); -``` - -You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the -number of parameters is 0. - -You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: -``` -ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -``` - -## Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION ## - -For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask -you to provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action -parameters. Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. - -Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. -There are several tricks to do that. For example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. - int n = arg0; - ... use n instead of arg0 here ... -} - -ACTION_P(Bar, param) { - // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. - ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); - - // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. - bool flag = param; -} -``` -where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in Google Test -that verifies two types are the same. - -## Writing New Action Templates Quickly ## - -Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that -cannot be inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` -supports that and can be viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and -`ACTION_P*()`. - -The syntax: -``` -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, - HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), - AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -``` - -defines an action template that takes _m_ explicit template parameters -and _n_ value parameters, where _m_ is between 1 and 10, and _n_ is -between 0 and 10. `name_i` is the name of the i-th template -parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a `typename`, an -integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the i-th value -parameter. - -Example: -``` -// DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// function to type T and copies it to *output. -ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, - // Note the comma between int and k: - HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { - *output = T(std::tr1::get(args)); -} -``` - -To create an instance of an action template, write: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where the `t`s are the template arguments and the -`v`s are the value arguments. The value argument -types are inferred by the compiler. For example: -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - int n; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) - .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -``` - -If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -provide additional template arguments: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`. - -`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the -number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following is -unclear: - -``` - OverloadedAction(x); -``` - -Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to -the type of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler -is asked to infer the type of `x`? - -## Using the ACTION Object's Type ## - -If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll -need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define -the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: -| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** | -|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------| -| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar(int_value)` | `FooActionP` | -| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2` | -| ... | ... | ... | - -Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, -`ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of value -parameters, or the action definitions cannot be overloaded on the -number of them. - -## Writing New Monomorphic Actions ## - -While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are -inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous -recipes, they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock -function arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads -to unoptimized compiler error messages that can baffle unfamiliar -users. They also don't allow overloading actions based on parameter -types without jumping through some hoops. - -An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement -`::testing::ActionInterface`, where `F` is the type of the mock -function in which the action will be used. For example: - -``` -template class ActionInterface { - public: - virtual ~ActionInterface(); - - // Performs the action. Result is the return type of function type - // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F. - // - // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would - // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be tr1::tuple. - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0; -}; - -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Action; -using ::testing::ActionInterface; -using ::testing::MakeAction; - -typedef int IncrementMethod(int*); - -class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface { - public: - virtual int Perform(const tr1::tuple& args) { - int* p = tr1::get<0>(args); // Grabs the first argument. - return *p++; - } -}; - -Action IncrementArgument() { - return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_)) - .WillOnce(IncrementArgument()); - - int n = 5; - foo.Baz(&n); // Should return 5 and change n to 6. -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Actions ## - -The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is -all good, except that you need to know the type of the function in -which the action will be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For -example, if you want to use the action in functions with _different_ -types (e.g. like `Return()` and `SetArgumentPointee()`). - -If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say -it's _polymorphic_. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template -makes it easy to define such an action: - -``` -namespace testing { - -template -PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl); - -} // namespace testing -``` - -As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument -in the mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an -implementation class: - -``` -class ReturnSecondArgumentAction { - public: - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use tr1::get(args). - return tr1::get<1>(args); - } -}; -``` - -This implementation class does _not_ need to inherit from any -particular class. What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` -method template. This method template takes the mock function's -arguments as a tuple in a **single** argument, and returns the result of -the action. It can be either `const` or not, but must be invokable -with exactly one template argument, which is the result type. In other -words, you must be able to call `Perform(args)` where `R` is the -mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple. - -Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the -implementation class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be -convenient to have a wrapper for this: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction; -using ::testing::PolymorphicAction; - -PolymorphicAction ReturnSecondArgument() { - return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction()); -} -``` - -Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the -built-in ones: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, int(bool flag, int n)); - MOCK_METHOD3(DoThat, string(int x, const char* str1, const char* str2)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - ... - foo.DoThis(true, 5); // Will return 5. - foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye"); // Will return "Hi". -``` - -## Teaching Google Mock How to Print Your Values ## - -When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, Google Mock prints -the argument values to help you debug. The `EXPECT_THAT` and -`ASSERT_THAT` assertions also print the value being validated when the -test fails. Google Mock does this using the user-extensible value -printer defined in ``. - -This printer knows how to print the built-in C++ types, native arrays, -STL containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For -other types, it prints the raw bytes in the value and hope you the -user can figure it out. - -Did I say that the printer is `extensible`? That means you can teach -it to do a better job at printing your particular type than to dump -the bytes. To do that, you just need to define `<<` for your type: - -``` -#include - -namespace foo { - -class Foo { ... }; - -// It's important that the << operator is defined in the SAME -// namespace that defines Foo. C++'s look-up rules rely on that. -::std::ostream& operator<<(::std::ostream& os, const Foo& foo) { - return os << foo.DebugString(); // Whatever needed to print foo to os. -} - -} // namespace foo -``` - -Sometimes, this might not be an option. For example, your team may -consider it dangerous or bad style to have a `<<` operator for `Foo`, -or `Foo` may already have a `<<` operator that doesn't do what you -want (and you cannot change it). Don't despair though - Google Mock -gives you a second chance to get it right. Namely, you can define a -`PrintTo()` function like this: - -``` -#include - -namespace foo { - -class Foo { ... }; - -// It's important that PrintTo() is defined in the SAME -// namespace that defines Foo. C++'s look-up rules rely on that. -void PrintTo(const Foo& foo, ::std::ostream* os) { - *os << foo.DebugString(); // Whatever needed to print foo to os. -} - -} // namespace foo -``` - -What if you have both `<<` and `PrintTo()`? In this case, the latter -will override the former when Google Mock is concerned. This allows -you to customize how the value should appear in Google Mock's output -without affecting code that relies on the behavior of its `<<` -operator. - -**Note:** When printing a pointer of type `T*`, Google Mock calls -`PrintTo(T*, std::ostream* os)` instead of `operator<<(std::ostream&, T*)`. -Therefore the only way to affect how a pointer is printed by Google -Mock is to define `PrintTo()` for it. Also note that `T*` and `const T*` -are different types, so you may need to define `PrintTo()` for both. - -Why does Google Mock treat pointers specially? There are several reasons: - - * We cannot use `operator<<` to print a `signed char*` or `unsigned char*`, since it will print the pointer as a NUL-terminated C string, which likely will cause an access violation. - * We want `NULL` pointers to be printed as `"NULL"`, but `operator<<` prints it as `"0"`, `"nullptr"`, or something else, depending on the compiler. - * With some compilers, printing a `NULL` `char*` using `operator<<` will segfault. - * `operator<<` prints a function pointer as a `bool` (hence it always prints `"1"`), which is not very useful. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md deleted file mode 100644 index 315b0a2..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ -This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **version 1.5.0** -- **if you use a different version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.** - - * [ForDummies](V1_5_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock. - * [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference. - * [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock. - * [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_5_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list. - -To contribute code to Google Mock, read: - - * DevGuide -- read this _before_ writing your first patch. - * [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md deleted file mode 100644 index f389606..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,439 +0,0 @@ - - -(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](V1_5_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md).) - -# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? # -When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc). - -**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community: - - * **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake. - * **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. - -If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks. - -**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java. - -Using Google Mock involves three basic steps: - - 1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class; - 1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax; - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises. - -# Why Google Mock? # -While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_: - - * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. - * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. - * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next. - -In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. - -Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you: - - * You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid". - * Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database). - * Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network). - * You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one. - * You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best. - * You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks. - -We encourage you to use Google Mock as: - - * a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs! - * a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators. - -# Getting Started # -Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just #include `` and ``, and you are ready to go. - -# A Case for Mock Turtles # -Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface: - -``` -class Turtle { - ... - virtual ~Turtle() {} - virtual void PenUp() = 0; - virtual void PenDown() = 0; - virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0; - virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0; - virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0; - virtual int GetX() const = 0; - virtual int GetY() const = 0; -}; -``` - -(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.) - -You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle. - -Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_. - -# Writing the Mock Class # -If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.) - -## How to Define It ## -Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow: - - 1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`. - 1. Take a virtual function of `Turtle`. Count how many arguments it has. - 1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so. - 1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_). - 1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. - -After the process, you should have something like: - -``` -#include // Brings in Google Mock. -class MockTurtle : public Turtle { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees)); - MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int()); -}; -``` - -You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins. - -**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the -`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line -tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it, -and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the -complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but -it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README). - -## Where to Put It ## -When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?) - -So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed. - -Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # -Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is: - - 1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.). - 1. Create some mock objects. - 1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.). - 1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately. - 1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here's an example: - -``` -#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h" -#include -#include -using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1 - -TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) { - MockTurtle turtle; // #2 - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3 - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - - Painter painter(&turtle); // #4 - - EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); -} // #5 - -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock - // (and Google Test) before running the tests. - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); -} -``` - -As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this: - -``` -path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation: -Actually: never called; -Expected: called at least once. -``` - -**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation. - -**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap. - -**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions. - -This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier. - -Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks. - -## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ## -If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or -[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to: -``` -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure, - // which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure. - ::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true; - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - ... whatever your testing framework requires ... -} -``` - -This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception -from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this -sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to -notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure. - -A better solution is to use Google Test's -[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestAdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events) -to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to -implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it -should be straightforward. - -If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with -Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is -technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you -cannot use Google Test, please let us know. - -# Setting Expectations # -The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right." - -## General Syntax ## -In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is: - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .Times(cardinality) - .WillOnce(action) - .WillRepeatedly(action); -``` - -The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.) - -The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections. - -This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .Times(5) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(150)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(200)); -``` - -says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL). - -**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier. - -## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ## -When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example: - -``` -// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); -``` - -Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes": - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... -// Expects the turtle to move forward. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); -``` - -`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. - -A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); -``` - -This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units. - -## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ## -The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly. - -An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called. - -We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md). - -The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember: - - * If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. - -**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times? - -## Actions: What Should It Do? ## -Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock. - -First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used. - -Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillOnce(Return(300)); -``` - -This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(300)); -``` - -says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on. - -Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.). - -What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](V1_5_CheatSheet#Actions.md). - -**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want: - -``` -int n = 100; -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) -.Times(4) -.WillOnce(Return(n++)); -``` - -Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md). - -Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) -.Times(4) -.WillOnce(Return(100)); -``` - -Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions. - -## Using Multiple Expectations ## -So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects. - -By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation. - -**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it. - -## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ## -By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified. - -Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence;... -TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { - ... - { - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp()); - } - Foo(); -} -``` - -By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant. - -In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. - -(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md).) - -## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ## -Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? - -After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()); -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above. - -This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.). - -Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say? - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)); -} -``` - -If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful! - -One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; -... -{ - InSequence s; - - for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - } -} -``` - -By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call). - -## Uninteresting Calls ## -A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called. - -In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure. - -# What Now? # -Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned. - -Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md deleted file mode 100644 index 7593243..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,624 +0,0 @@ - - -Please send your questions to the -[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion -group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have -tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first. - -## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ## - -After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how -to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative -messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what -we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it. - -Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers -by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, -your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the -`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected. - -Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's -in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than -later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing -matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do: - -If you wrote your matcher like this: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -you'll need to change it to: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` -(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second -argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.) - -If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher -message: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - - virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) const { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - } - ... -}; -``` - -you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into -`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where -the `::std::ostream` was used: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and -add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do -for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`): -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better -failure messages: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher, - MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); -} -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to -`MatchAndExplain()`: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -For more information, you can read these -[two](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers.md) -[recipes](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers.md) -from the cookbook. As always, you -are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you -need any help. - -## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ## - -Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy -to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice. -[Here](V1_5_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework.md) is how. - -## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ## - -If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you, -try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to -scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the -problems (we call them diseases) your code has. - -To "install", run command: -``` -alias gmd='/scripts/gmock_doctor.py' -``` - -To use it, do: -``` - 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -For example: -``` -make my_test 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it. - -## Can I mock a variadic function? ## - -You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis -(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock. - -The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to -know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what -the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows -the protocol, and we cannot look into his head. - -Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock -object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One -way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function. - -Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. -They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have -constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in -C++ as much as possible. - -## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ## - -If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i)); -}; -``` -You may get the following warning: -``` -warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier -``` - -This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for -example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning: -``` -warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers -``` - -In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the -`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above -is equivalent to: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference. -}; -``` - -In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_ -it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them -up. - -Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method -_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. -That should workaround the VC bug. - -Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here. -If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring -the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For -example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent: -``` -void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const. -void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is. -``` - -## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ## - -We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ -uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest -to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks. - -## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ## - -You might want to run your test with -`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace -of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace, -you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met. - -## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ## - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ## - -When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information -(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and -etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google -Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant -expectations. - -Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, -and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are -however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_. -The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information. - -## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ## - -Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a -virtual destructor? - -Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is -virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following -code: - -``` -class Base { - public: - // Not virtual, but should be. - ~Base() { ... } - ... -}; - -class Derived : public Base { - public: - ... - private: - std::string value_; -}; - -... - Base* p = new Derived; - ... - delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not - // - value_ is leaked. -``` - -By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly -called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker -will be happy. - -## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ## - -When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the -// reverse order. This sucks big time!!! -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's -intent. - -By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular -order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be -explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's -easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it -harder to do so. - -There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either -put the expectations in sequence: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations -// in their natural order. -{ - InSequence s; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the -expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this -allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early -(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase) -and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock -searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be -possible. - -## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ## - -When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the -latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the -warning. - -Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's -constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from -test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which -are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up -part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's -no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If -we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs -may creep in unnoticed. - -If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(...); -``` - -instead of - -``` -ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillByDefault(...); -``` - -This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be -printed. - -Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag. -If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less -verbose level. - -## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ## - -If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not -supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own -actions using -[MakeAction()](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions.md) or -[MakePolymorphicAction()](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions.md), -or you can write a stub function and invoke it using -[Invoke()](V1_5_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors.md). - -## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ## - -What?! I think it's beautiful. :-) - -While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some -extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it -has. - -Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument: -``` -virtual int GetSize(const map& m); -``` - -Using the proposed syntax, it would be: -``` -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map& m); -``` - -Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that -`const map& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work -around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but -that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this -problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair -of parentheses: -``` -// This compiles fine. -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map& m)); -``` - -You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected -comma, but that's much rarer. - -Other advantages include: - 1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax. - 1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it. - 1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`! - -## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ## - -You can, but you need to make some changes. - -In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, -it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less -flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better -off defining a small interface and call the function through that -interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work -initially, but usually pays for itself quickly. - -This Google Testing Blog -[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) -says it excellently. Check it out. - -## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ## - -I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-) - -With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be -tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and -sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in -the latter case? - -When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and -assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an -expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing". - -Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: -instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects -verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon -as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the -error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to -do than state-based testing. - -If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to -simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. -Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for -mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think -that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your -problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-) - -## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ## - -By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. - -What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any -expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not -interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called -any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say -it's not OK to call the function! - -What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but -forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While -one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and -prints you a note. - -So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any -uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make -your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments -when an uninteresting call is encountered. - -## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ## - -Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient -for your circumstance. - -Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it -using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in -functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining -`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is -easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of -functions the action can be used in, and implementing -`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of -`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example. - -## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ## - -You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return -when the mock method is called. `SetArgumentPointee()` says what the -side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You -need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgumentPointee()` with a `Return()`. - -See this [recipe](V1_5_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects.md) for more details and an example. - - -## My question is not in your FAQ! ## - -If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are -some other resources you can use: - - 1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list), - 1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics), - 1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.). - -Please note that creating an issue in the -[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_ -a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a -very small number of people. - -When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the -following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's -not enough information in your question): - - * the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version), - * your operating system, - * the name and version of your compiler, - * the complete command line flags you give to your compiler, - * the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation), - * the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md deleted file mode 100644 index 91de1d2..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,534 +0,0 @@ - - -# Defining a Mock Class # - -## Mocking a Normal Class ## - -Given -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual ~Foo(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0; - virtual string Describe(int type) = 0; - virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count)); -}; -``` - -To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls, -or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures: -``` -NiceMock nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -StrictMock strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -``` - -## Mocking a Class Template ## - -To mock -``` -template -class StackInterface { - public: - ... - virtual ~StackInterface(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: -``` -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - public: - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ## - -If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you -can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros -described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling -convention as the first argument to the macro. For example, -``` - MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y)); -``` -where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `` on Windows. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # - -The typical flow is: - 1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted. - 1. Create the mock objects. - 1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects. - 1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?). - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. - 1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here is an example: -``` -using ::testing::Return; // #1 - -TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) { - MockFoo foo; // #2 - - ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3 - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - // ... other default actions ... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4 - .Times(3) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5")); - // ... other expectations ... - - EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5 -} // #6 -``` - -# Setting Default Actions # - -Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that -returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. - -To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally: -``` -using ::testing::DefaultValue; - -DefaultValue::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned. -// ... use the mocks ... -DefaultValue::Clear(); // Resets the default value. -``` - -To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`: -``` -ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .WillByDefault(action); -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be -called? What will it do?): -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .Times(cardinality) ? - .InSequence(sequences) * - .After(expectations) * - .WillOnce(action) * - .WillRepeatedly(action) ? - .RetiresOnSaturation(); ? -``` - -If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be: - - * `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`; - * `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or - * `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0. - -A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time. - -# Matchers # - -A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside -`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value -directly: - -| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. | -|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------| -| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. | - -Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are -divided into several categories: - -## Wildcard ## -|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.| -|:--|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`A()` or `An()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. | - -## Generic Comparison ## - -|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`| -|:---------------------|:------------------| -|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`| -|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` | -|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`| -|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` | -|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`| -|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).| -|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).| -|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.| -|`TypedEq(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.| - -Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's -modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` -doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`, -e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure -`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your -matcher will be changed. - -## Floating-Point Matchers ## - -|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. | - -These matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They -automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute -value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to -the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to -return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as -equal, which is often what a user wants. - -## String Matchers ## - -The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object: - -|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.| -|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. | -|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. | -|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.| -|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. | -|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. | -|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.| -|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. | -|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. | - -`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` use the regular expression -syntax defined -[here](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_AdvancedGuide#Regular_Expression_Syntax). -`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide -strings as well. - -## Container Matchers ## - -Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line, -match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use: - -| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -|:--------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where _every_ element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. | -| `ElementsAreArray(array)` or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from a C-style array. | -| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. | -| `Pointwise(m, container)` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. | - -These matchers can also match: - - 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and - 1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)). - -where the array may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays). - -## Member Matchers ## - -|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| -|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.| -|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. | -|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| - -## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ## - -|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.| -|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Pointer Matchers ## - -|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.| -|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Multiargument Matchers ## - -Technically, all matchers match a _single_ value. A "multi-argument" -matcher is just one that matches a _tuple_. The following matchers can -be used to match a tuple `(x, y)`: - -|`Eq()`|`x == y`| -|:-----|:-------| -|`Ge()`|`x >= y`| -|`Gt()`|`x > y` | -|`Le()`|`x <= y`| -|`Lt()`|`x < y` | -|`Ne()`|`x != y`| - -You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments -(or reorder them) to participate in the matching: - -|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.| -|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Args(m)`|The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`.| - -## Composite Matchers ## - -You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers: - -|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------| -|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -## Adapters for Matchers ## - -|`MatcherCast(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher`.| -|:------------------|:--------------------------------------| -|`SafeMatcherCast(m)`| [safely casts](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Casting_Matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | -|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.| - -## Matchers as Predicates ## - -|`Matches(m)(value)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor.| -|:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. | -|`Value(value, m)` |evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. | - -## Defining Matchers ## - -| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. | -|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------| -| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. | -| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " between " + PrintToString(a) + " and " + PrintToString(b)) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. | - -**Notes:** - - 1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - 1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). - 1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string. - -## Matchers as Test Assertions ## - -|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_Primer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.| -|:---------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -# Actions # - -**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked. - -## Returning a Value ## - -|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.| -|:---------|:----------------------------------| -|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type at the time the expectation is set, not when the action is executed.| -|`ReturnArg()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`ReturnNew(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.| -|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. | -|`ReturnPointee(ptr)`|Return the value pointed to by `ptr`.| -|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. | -|`ReturnRefOfCopy(value)`|Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action.| - -## Side Effects ## - -|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.| -|:-------------------------|:--------------------------| -| `DeleteArg()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. | -| `SaveArg(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SaveArgPointee(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SetArgReferee(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | -|`SetArgPointee(value)` |Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`SetArgumentPointee(value)`|Same as `SetArgPointee(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0.| -|`SetArrayArgument(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.| -|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.| -|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.| - -## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ## - -|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.| -|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. | -|`InvokeArgument(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.| - -The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value -of the action. - -When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`: -``` - double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); } - ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance)); -``` - -In `InvokeArgument(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example, -``` - InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo)) -``` -calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference. - -## Default Action ## - -|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).| -|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------| - -**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error. - -## Composite Actions ## - -|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. | -|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. | -|`WithArg(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithArgs(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. | - -## Defining Actions ## - -| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. | -|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. | -| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. | - -The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - -# Cardinalities # - -These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called: - -|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.| -|:------------|:----------------------------------------------| -|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. | -|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. | -|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.| -|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.| - -# Expectation Order # - -By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some -or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two -ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or -together. - -## The After Clause ## - -``` -using ::testing::Expectation; -... -Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX()); -Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY()); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(init_x, init_y); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and -`InitY()` have been called. - -If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you -write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them: - -``` -using ::testing::ExpectationSet; -... -ExpectationSet all_inits; -for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) { - all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i)); -} -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(all_inits); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been -initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized -before the others). - -Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't -affect the meaning of the `.After()`. - -## Sequences ## - -When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to -specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given -each expectation in the chain a different name. All expected
-calls in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -specified. - -``` -using ::testing::Sequence; -Sequence s1, s2; -... -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset()) - .InSequence(s1, s2) - .WillOnce(Return(true)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize()) - .InSequence(s1) - .WillOnce(Return(1)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A())) - .InSequence(s2) - .WillOnce(Return("dummy")); -``` -says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_ -`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order. - -To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently: -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -{ - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; -} -``` -says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in -strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.) - -# Verifying and Resetting a Mock # - -Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier: -``` -using ::testing::Mock; -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj); -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL(); -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj); -``` - -You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't -need to be verified: -``` -Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj); -``` - -# Mock Classes # - -Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template -``` -class MockFunction { - public: - MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An)); -}; -``` -See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Using_Check_Points) for one application of it. - -# Flags # - -| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. | -|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------| -| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md deleted file mode 100644 index f5975a0..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3342 +0,0 @@ - - -You can find recipes for using Google Mock here. If you haven't yet, -please read the [ForDummies](V1_6_ForDummies.md) document first to make sure you understand -the basics. - -**Note:** Google Mock lives in the `testing` name space. For -readability, it is recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in -your file before using the name `Foo` defined by Google Mock. We omit -such `using` statements in this page for brevity, but you should do it -in your own code. - -# Creating Mock Classes # - -## Mocking Private or Protected Methods ## - -You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD*`) in a -`public:` section of the mock class, regardless of the method being -mocked being `public`, `protected`, or `private` in the base class. -This allows `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function -from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change -the access level of a virtual function in the base class.) Example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - ... - virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0; - - protected: - virtual void Resume(); - - private: - virtual int GetTimeOut(); -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Transform, bool(Gadget* g)); - - // The following must be in the public section, even though the - // methods are protected or private in the base class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Resume, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(GetTimeOut, int()); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Overloaded Methods ## - -You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required: - -``` -class Foo { - ... - - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo. - virtual ~Foo(); - - // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments. - virtual int Add(Element x); - virtual int Add(int times, Element x); - - // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object. - virtual Bar& GetBar(); - virtual const Bar& GetBar() const; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Add, int(int times, Element x); - - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -``` - -**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the -compiler will give you a warning about some methods in the base class -being hidden. To fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - using Foo::Add; - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x); - ... -}; -``` - -## Mocking Class Templates ## - -To mock a class template, append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: - -``` -template -class StackInterface { - ... - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface. - virtual ~StackInterface(); - - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; - -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Nonvirtual Methods ## - -Google Mock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in what we call _hi-perf -dependency injection_. - -In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real -class, your mock class will be _unrelated_ to the real class, but -contain methods with the same signatures. The syntax for mocking -non-virtual methods is the _same_ as mocking virtual methods: - -``` -// A simple packet stream class. None of its members is virtual. -class ConcretePacketStream { - public: - void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet); - const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const; - size_t NumberOfPackets() const; - ... -}; - -// A mock packet stream class. It inherits from no other, but defines -// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets(). -class MockPacketStream { - public: - MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(GetPacket, const Packet*(size_t packet_number)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(NumberOfPackets, size_t()); - ... -}; -``` - -Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the -real class. That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it. - -Next, you need a way to say that you want to use -`ConcretePacketStream` in production code, and use `MockPacketStream` -in tests. Since the functions are not virtual and the two classes are -unrelated, you must specify your choice at _compile time_ (as opposed -to run time). - -One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet -stream. More specifically, you will give your code a template type -argument for the type of the packet stream. In production, you will -instantiate your template with `ConcretePacketStream` as the type -argument. In tests, you will instantiate the same template with -`MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write: - -``` -template -void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... } - -template -class PacketReader { - public: - void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num); -}; -``` - -Then you can use `CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in production code, and use -`CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in tests. - -``` - MockPacketStream mock_stream; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...; - .. set more expectations on mock_stream ... - PacketReader reader(&mock_stream); - ... exercise reader ... -``` - -## Mocking Free Functions ## - -It's possible to use Google Mock to mock a free function (i.e. a -C-style function or a static method). You just need to rewrite your -code to use an interface (abstract class). - -Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, -introduce an interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls -the free function: - -``` -class FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0; -}; - -class File : public FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) { - return OpenFile(path, mode); - } -}; -``` - -Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's -easy to mock out the function. - -This may seem much hassle, but in practice you often have multiple -related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the -per-function syntactic overhead will be much lower. - -If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by -virtual functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can -combine this with the recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods.md). - -## Nice Mocks and Strict Mocks ## - -If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, Google Mock -will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is: - - * New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called. - * However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, he can add an `EXPECT_CALL()` to suppress the warning. - -However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call" -warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all -of them as errors. Google Mock lets you make the decision on a -per-mock-object basis. - -Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`: - -``` -TEST(...) { - MockFoo mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, it will be -reported by Google Mock as a warning. However, if you rewrite your -test to use `NiceMock` instead, the warning will be gone, -resulting in a cleaner test output: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -`NiceMock` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used -wherever `MockFoo` is accepted. - -It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as -`NiceMock` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo(5, "hi"); // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi"). - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all -uninteresting calls failures: - -``` -using ::testing::StrictMock; - -TEST(...) { - StrictMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... - - // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() - // is called. -} -``` - -There are some caveats though (I don't like them just as much as the -next guy, but sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations): - - 1. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only work for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD*` family of macros **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. `NiceMock >`) is **not** supported. - 1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml). - 1. During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is _not_ nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.) - -Finally, you should be **very cautious** when using this feature, as the -decision you make applies to **all** future changes to the mock -class. If an important change is made in the interface you are mocking -(and thus in the mock class), it could break your tests (if you use -`StrictMock`) or let bugs pass through without a warning (if you use -`NiceMock`). Therefore, try to specify the mock's behavior using -explicit `EXPECT_CALL` first, and only turn to `NiceMock` or -`StrictMock` as the last resort. - -## Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code ## - -Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly -uninteresting. For example, - -``` -class LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, - const struct tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0; -}; -``` - -This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (let's -say that the `message` argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock -it as is, using the mock will be awkward. If, however, we try to -simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all clients depending on -it, which is often infeasible. - -The trick is to re-dispatch the method in the mock class: - -``` -class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) { - // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and - // log message. - Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len)); - } - - // Implements the mock method: - // - // void Log(LogSeverity severity, - // const string& file_path, - // const string& message); - MOCK_METHOD3(Log, void(LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path, - const string& message)); -}; -``` - -By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make -the mock class much more user-friendly. - -## Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes ## - -Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement -interfaces. In order to test your code that uses such a class (let's -call it `Concrete`), you may be tempted to make the methods of -`Concrete` virtual and then mock it. - -Try not to do that. - -Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an -extension point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This -weakens your control on the class because now it's harder to maintain -the class' invariants. You should make a function virtual only when -there is a valid reason for a subclass to override it. - -Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight -coupling between the class and the tests - any small change in the -class may invalidate your tests and make test maintenance a pain. - -To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding -to interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code -would define an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that -interface as an adaptor on top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily -mock that interface to observe how your code is doing. - -This technique incurs some overhead: - - * You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem). - * There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn. - -However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better -testability: - - * `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way, which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more productive. - * If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be insulated from this change. - -Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they -will end up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally -understandable. However, there are two reasons why it may not be the -case: - - * Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the same code. - * If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it, just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib` sub-directory) and let many projects use it. - -You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular -problem, but I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been -practicing this for a long time and it's a proven effective technique -applicable in a wide variety of situations. :-) - -## Delegating Calls to a Fake ## - -Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an -interface. For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo() {} - virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0; - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0; -}; - -class FakeFoo : public Foo { - public: - virtual char DoThis(int n) { - return (n > 0) ? '+' : - (n < 0) ? '-' : '0'; - } - - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) { - *p = strlen(s); - } -}; -``` - -Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations -on it. However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default -behavior, as duplicating it in the mock object is, well, a lot of -work. - -When you define the mock class using Google Mock, you can have it -delegate its default action to a fake class you already have, using -this pattern: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Normal mock method definitions using Google Mock. - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, char(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThat, void(const char* s, int* p)); - - // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object. - // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements. - void DelegateToFake() { - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_, _)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThat)); - } - private: - FakeFoo fake_; // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock. -}; -``` - -With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember -that if you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or -`EXPECT_CALL()`, the fake will be called upon to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) { - MockFoo foo; - foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation. - - // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any. - - // No action specified, meaning to use the default action. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _)); - - int n = 0; - EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked. - foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked. - EXPECT_EQ(2, n); -} -``` - -**Some tips:** - - * If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`. - * In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake implementation you intend to use. - * The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`), see the "Selecting Between Overloaded Functions" section on this page; to disambiguate a fake function (the one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the function's type. - * Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong. Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up. Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an intermediate step when you are refactoring your code. - -Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on -why it may be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for -low-level system operations. In particular, it does file and I/O -operations. And suppose you want to test how your code uses `System` -to do I/O, and you just want the file operations to work normally. If -you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll have to provide a fake -implementation for the file operation part, which suggests that -`System` is taking on too many roles. - -Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface -and split `System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock -`IOOps` without mocking `FileOps`. - -## Delegating Calls to a Real Object ## - -When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes -their behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This -difference could be either intentional (as in simulating an error such -that you can test the error handling code) or unintentional. If your -mocks have different behaviors than the real objects by mistake, you -could end up with code that passes the tests but fails in production. - -You can use the _delegating-to-real_ technique to ensure that your -mock has the same behavior as the real object while retaining the -ability to validate calls. This technique is very similar to the -delegating-to-fake technique, the difference being that we use a real -object instead of a fake. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AtLeast; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MockFoo() { - // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object. - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis()) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThat)); - ... - } - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, ...); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, ...); - ... - private: - Foo real_; -}; -... - - MockFoo mock; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis()) - .Times(3); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi")) - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - ... use mock in test ... -``` - -With this, Google Mock will verify that your code made the right calls -(with the right arguments, in the right order, called the right number -of times, etc), and a real object will answer the calls (so the -behavior will be the same as in production). This gives you the best -of both worlds. - -## Delegating Calls to a Parent Class ## - -Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure -virtual. In reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method -that is not pure (i.e, it already has an implementation). For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo(); - - virtual void Pure(int n) = 0; - virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... } -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); -}; -``` - -Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of -`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub -action, or perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all -(but it would be oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class -whenever you don't need to mock one of its methods). - -The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the -real methods in the base class: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); - - // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo. - int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); } -}; -``` - -Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`: - -``` -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -(Why don't we just write `Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concrete)`? If you do -that, `MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite -recursion) since `Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ -works.) - -# Using Matchers # - -## Matching Argument Values Exactly ## - -You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)) - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar)); -``` - -## Using Simple Matchers ## - -You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5))) // The argument must be >= 5. - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull())); - // The second argument must not be NULL. -``` - -A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::NotNull; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull())); -``` - -## Combining Matchers ## - -You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`, -`AnyOf()`, and `Not()`: - -``` -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::HasSubstr; -using ::testing::Ne; -using ::testing::Not; -... - // The argument must be > 5 and != 10. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5), - Ne(10)))); - - // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah". - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")), - NULL)); -``` - -## Casting Matchers ## - -Google Mock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler -can catch your mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for -example, if you use `Eq(5)` to match a `string` argument). Good for -you! - -Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler -to give you some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for -`long` and the argument you want to match is `int`. While the two -types aren't exactly the same, there is nothing really wrong with -using a `Matcher` to match an `int` - after all, we can first -convert the `int` argument to a `long` before giving it to the -matcher. - -To support this need, Google Mock gives you the -`SafeMatcherCast(m)` function. It casts a matcher `m` to type -`Matcher`. To ensure safety, Google Mock checks that (let `U` be the -type `m` accepts): - - 1. Type `T` can be implicitly cast to type `U`; - 1. When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`); and - 1. When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value). - -The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met. - -Here's one example: - -``` -using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; - -// A base class and a child class. -class Base { ... }; -class Derived : public Base { ... }; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, void(Derived* derived)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - // m is a Matcher we got from somewhere. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast(m))); -``` - -If you find `SafeMatcherCast(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar -function `MatcherCast(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works -as long as you can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`. - -`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system -(`static_cast` isn't always safe as it could throw away information, -for example), so be careful not to misuse/abuse it. - -## Selecting Between Overloaded Functions ## - -If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may -need some help on which overloaded version it is. - -To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, -use the `Const()` argument wrapper. - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar1, bar2; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) // The non-const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1)); - EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar()) // The const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2)); -``` - -(`Const()` is defined by Google Mock and returns a `const` reference -to its argument.) - -To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments -but different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type -of a matcher, either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher()`, or -using a matcher whose type is fixed (`TypedEq`, `An()`, -etc): - -``` -using ::testing::An; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::TypedEq; - -class MockPrinter : public Printer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(char c)); -}; - -TEST(PrinterTest, Print) { - MockPrinter printer; - - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An())); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher(Lt(5)))); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq('a'))); // void Print(char); - - printer.Print(3); - printer.Print(6); - printer.Print('a'); -} -``` - -## Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments ## - -When a mock method is called, the _last_ matching expectation that's -still active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you -can make a method do different things depending on its argument values -like this: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - // The default case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('b')); - - // The more specific case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5))) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('a')); -``` - -Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will -be returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned. - -## Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole ## - -Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For -example, we may want to say that the first argument must be less than -the second argument. The `With()` clause allows us to match -all arguments of a mock function as a whole. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Ne; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _)) - .With(Lt()); -``` - -says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be -less than the second argument. - -The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type -`Matcher >`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the -types of the function arguments. - -You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The -two forms are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable -than `.With(Lt())`. - -You can use `Args(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments -(as a tuple) against `m`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Args; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah(_, _, _)) - .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt()))); -``` - -says that `Blah()` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where -`x < y < z`. - -As a convenience and example, Google Mock provides some matchers for -2-tuples, including the `Lt()` matcher above. See the [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md) for -the complete list. - -Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own -(e.g. `.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be -written to take a `tr1::tuple` as its argument; Google Mock will pass the `n` -selected arguments as _one_ single tuple to the predicate. - -## Using Matchers as Predicates ## - -Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also -knows how to describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates -as arguments (e.g. those defined in STL's `` header), and -it would be a shame if Google Mock matchers are not allowed to -participate. - -Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is -expected by wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example, - -``` -#include -#include - -std::vector v; -... -// How many elements in v are >= 10? -const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10))); -``` - -Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using -Google Mock, this gives you a way to conveniently construct composite -predicates (doing the same using STL's `` header is just -painful). For example, here's a predicate that's satisfied by any -number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50: - -``` -Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50))) -``` - -## Using Matchers in Google Test Assertions ## - -Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe -themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. It's -called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`: - -``` - ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher); // Asserts that value matches matcher. - EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher); // The non-fatal version. -``` - -For example, in a Google Test test you can write: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Le; -using ::testing::MatchesRegex; -using ::testing::StartsWith; -... - - EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello")); - EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+")); - ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10))); -``` - -which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and -`Baz()`, and verifies that: - - * `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`. - * `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`. - * `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10]. - -The nice thing about these macros is that _they read like -English_. They generate informative messages too. For example, if the -first `EXPECT_THAT()` above fails, the message will be something like: - -``` -Value of: Foo() - Actual: "Hi, world!" -Expected: starts with "Hello" -``` - -**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was stolen from the -[Hamcrest](http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/) project, which adds -`assertThat()` to JUnit. - -## Using Predicates as Matchers ## - -Google Mock provides a built-in set of matchers. In case you find them -lacking, you can use an arbitray unary predicate function or functor -as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type -you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` -function, for example: - -``` -using ::testing::Truly; - -int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; } -... - - // Bar() must be called with an even number. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven))); -``` - -Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return -`bool`. It works as long as the return value can be used as the -condition in statement `if (condition) ...`. - -## Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable ## - -When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, Google Mock saves -away a copy of `bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, Google Mock -compares the argument to `Foo()` with the saved copy of `bar`. This -way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being modified or destroyed -after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true when you use -matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on. - -But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You -could define your own matcher function and use it with `Truly()`, as -the previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get -away from it if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after -the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. Just tell Google Mock that it should -save a reference to `bar`, instead of a copy of it. Here's how: - -``` -using ::testing::Eq; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar)))); - - // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar)))); -``` - -Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the -`EXPECT_CALL()`, or the result is undefined. - -## Validating a Member of an Object ## - -Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When -matching the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object -against a fixed object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, -you may need to validate a certain member variable or the result of a -certain getter method of the object. You can do this with `Field()` -and `Property()`. More specifically, - -``` -Field(&Foo::bar, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable -satisfies matcher `m`. - -``` -Property(&Foo::baz, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns -a value that satisfies matcher `m`. - -For example: - -> | `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. | -|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------| -> | `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. | - -Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no -argument and be declared as `const`. - -BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to -objects. For instance, - -``` -Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) -``` - -matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, -the match will always fail regardless of the inner matcher. - -What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? -Remember that there is `AllOf()`. - -## Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument ## - -C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers -like `NULL`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a -pointer, but what if you want to make sure the value _pointed to_ by -the pointer, instead of the pointer itself, has a certain property? -Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)` matcher. - -`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer iff `m` matches the value the pointer -points to. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Pointee; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3)))); -``` - -expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value -greater than or equal to 3. - -One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as -a match failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of - -``` - AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m)) -``` - -without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test. - -Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers -**and** smart pointers (`linked_ptr`, `shared_ptr`, `scoped_ptr`, and -etc)? - -What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use -nested `Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example, -`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer -that points to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...). - -## Testing a Certain Property of an Object ## - -Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain -property, but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want -good error messages, you should define a matcher. If you want to do it -quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function. - -Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, -which has an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you -want to constrain that the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` -value is a given number. Here's how you can define a matcher to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum) - : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_; - } - private: - const int expected_sum_; -}; - -inline Matcher BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) { - return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum)); -} - -... - - EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...; -``` - -## Matching Containers ## - -Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to -a mock function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL -containers support the `==` operator, you can write -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. - -Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the -first element must be an exact match, but the second element can be -any positive number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often -have a small number of elements, and having to define the expected -container out-of-line is a bit of a hassle. - -You can use the `ElementsAre()` matcher in such cases: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ElementsAre; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which -must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -`ElementsAre()` is overloaded to take 0 to 10 arguments. If more are -needed, you can place them in a C-style array and use -`ElementsAreArray()` instead: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - - // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values. - const int expected_vector1[] = { 1, 5, 2, 4, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1))); - - // Or, an array of element matchers. - Matcher expected_vector2 = { 1, Gt(2), _, 3, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2))); -``` - -In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the -array size cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give -`ElementsAreArray()` an additional argument to specify the array size: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count]; - ... fill expected_vector3 with values ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count))); -``` - -**Tips:** - - * `ElementAre*()` works with _any_ container that implements the STL iterator concept (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports `begin()/end()`) and supports `size()`, not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above pattern. - * You can use nested `ElementAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional) containers. - * If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`. - * The order of elements _matters_ for `ElementsAre*()`. Therefore don't use it with containers whose element order is undefined (e.g. `hash_map`). - -## Sharing Matchers ## - -Under the hood, a Google Mock matcher object consists of a pointer to -a ref-counted implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and -very efficient, as only the pointer is copied. When the last matcher -that references the implementation object dies, the implementation -object will be deleted. - -Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again -and again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a -matcher variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example, - -``` - Matcher in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10)); - ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ... -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -## Ignoring Uninteresting Calls ## - -If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't -say anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, -Google Mock will perform its default action to allow the test program -to continue. If you are not happy with the default action taken by -Google Mock, you can override it using `DefaultValue::Set()` -(described later in this document) or `ON_CALL()`. - -Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock -method (via `EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some -expectation. If this function is called but the arguments don't match -any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement, it will be an error. - -## Disallowing Unexpected Calls ## - -If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just -list all the expected calls: - -``` -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10))) - .Times(AnyNumber()); -``` - -A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements will be an error. - -## Expecting Ordered Calls ## - -Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier takes precedence -when Google Mock tries to match a function call with an expectation, -by default calls don't have to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements are written. For example, if the arguments match the -matchers in the third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in the first two, -then the third expectation will be used. - -If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the -expectations, put the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you -define a variable of type `InSequence`: - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::InSequence; - - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_)) - .Times(2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6)); - } -``` - -In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two -calls to `bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are -in turn followed by a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred -out-of-order, Google Mock will report an error. - -## Expecting Partially Ordered Calls ## - -Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can -lead to brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring -before both `B` and `C`, but aren't interested in the relative order -of `B` and `C`. In this case, the test should reflect our real intent, -instead of being overly constraining. - -Google Mock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic -graph) on the calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the -[After](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CheatSheet#The_After_Clause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. - -Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the -`InSequence` class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less -flexible than `After()`, but more convenient when you have long chains -of sequential calls, as it doesn't require you to come up with -different names for the expectations in the chains. Here's how it -works: - -If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an -edge from node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get -a DAG. We use the term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this -DAG. Now, if we decompose the DAG into sequences, we just need to know -which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()` belongs to in order to be able to -reconstruct the orginal DAG. - -So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two -things: first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each -`EXPECT_CALL()` say which `Sequence` objects it is part -of. Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -written. For example, - -``` - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, A()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, B()) - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, C()) - .InSequence(s2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, D()) - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> -C -> D`): - -``` - +---> B - | - A ---| - | - +---> C ---> D -``` - -This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before -D. There's no restriction about the order other than these. - -## Controlling When an Expectation Retires ## - -When a mock method is called, Google Mock only consider expectations -that are still active. An expectation is active when created, and -becomes inactive (aka _retires_) when a call that has to occur later -has occurred. For example, in - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty.")) // #2 - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found.")) // #3 - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning -`"File too large."` is logged after this, it will be an error. - -Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's -saturated. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")); // #2 -``` - -says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File -too large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will -match again and result in an upper-bound-violated error. - -If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as -soon as it becomes saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #2 - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the -message `"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second -will match #1 - there will be no error. - -# Using Actions # - -## Returning References from Mock Methods ## - -If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use -`ReturnRef()` instead of `Return()` to return a result: - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar)); -``` - -## Returning Live Values from Mock Methods ## - -The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is -_created_, and always returns the same value whenever it's -executed. Sometimes you may want to instead return the _live_ value of -`x` (i.e. its value at the time when the action is _executed_.). - -If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using -`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References -from Mock Methods"). However, Google Mock doesn't let you use -`ReturnRef()` in a mock function whose return type is not a reference, -as doing that usually indicates a user error. So, what shall you do? - -You may be tempted to try `ByRef()`: - -``` -using testing::ByRef; -using testing::Return; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetValue, int()); -}; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x))); - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); -``` - -Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error: - -``` -Value of: foo.GetValue() - Actual: 0 -Expected: 42 -``` - -The reason is that `Return(value)` converts `value` to the actual -return type of the mock function at the time when the action is -_created_, not when it is _executed_. (This behavior was chosen for -the action to be safe when `value` is a proxy object that references -some temporary objects.) As a result, `ByRef(x)` is converted to an -`int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when the expectation is set, -and `Return(ByRef(x))` will always return 0. - -`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem -specifically. It returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time -the action is _executed_: - -``` -using testing::ReturnPointee; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x)); // Note the & here. - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); // This will succeed now. -``` - -## Combining Actions ## - -Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's -fine. `DoAll()` allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only -the return value of the last action in the sequence will be used. - -``` -using ::testing::DoAll; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(int n)); -}; -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1, - action_2, - ... - action_n)); -``` - -## Mocking Side Effects ## - -Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but -via side effects. For example, it may change some global state or -modify an output argument. To mock side effects, in general you can -define your own action by implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`. - -If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in -`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient: - -``` -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(bool mutate, int* value)); - ... -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _)) - .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5)); -``` - -In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 -to the `int` variable pointed to by argument #1 -(0-based). - -`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the -value you pass to it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and -alive. The implication however is that the value must have a copy -constructor and assignment operator. - -If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain -`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Return; -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(MutateInt, bool(int* value)); -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true))); -``` - -If the output argument is an array, use the -`SetArrayArgument(first, last)` action instead. It copies the -elements in source range `[first, last)` to the array pointed to by -the `N`-th (0-based) argument: - -``` -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; - -class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(int* values, int num_values)); - ... -}; -... - - MockArrayMutator mutator; - int values[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5)); -``` - -This also works when the argument is an output iterator: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SeArrayArgument; - -class MockRolodex : public Rolodex { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(GetNames, void(std::back_insert_iterator >)); - ... -}; -... - - MockRolodex rolodex; - vector names; - names.push_back("George"); - names.push_back("John"); - names.push_back("Thomas"); - EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end())); -``` - -## Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State ## - -If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use `::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the call: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; - -... - { - InSequence seq; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(true)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush()); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(false)); - } - my_mock.FlushIfDirty(); -``` - -This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called and return `false` afterwards. - -If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable and make a mock method get its return value from that variable: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SaveArg; -using ::testing::Return; - -ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; } -... - int previous_value = 0; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value)); - my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue(); -``` - -Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last `UpdateValue()` call. - -## Setting the Default Value for a Return Type ## - -If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by -default it will return 0 when invoked. You only need to specify an -action if this default value doesn't work for you. - -Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want -to specify a default value for types Google Mock doesn't know -about. You can do this using the `::testing::DefaultValue` class -template: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(CalculateBar, Bar()); -}; -... - - Bar default_bar; - // Sets the default return value for type Bar. - DefaultValue::Set(default_bar); - - MockFoo foo; - - // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default - // return value works for us. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar()); - - foo.CalculateBar(); // This should return default_bar. - - // Unsets the default return value. - DefaultValue::Clear(); -``` - -Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you -tests hard to understand. We recommend you to use this feature -judiciously. For example, you may want to make sure the `Set()` and -`Clear()` calls are right next to the code that uses your mock. - -## Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method ## - -You've learned how to change the default value of a given -type. However, this may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you -have two mock methods with the same return type and you want them to -have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()` macro allows you to -customize your mock's behavior at the method level: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .WillByDefault(Return(-1)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0)) - .WillByDefault(Return(0)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0))) - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .Times(AnyNumber()); - - foo.Sign(5); // This should return 1. - foo.Sign(-9); // This should return -1. - foo.Sign(0); // This should return 0. -``` - -As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` -statements, the news order take precedence over the older ones. In -other words, the **last** one that matches the function arguments will -be used. This matching order allows you to set up the common behavior -in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and -specialize the mock's behavior later. - -## Using Functions/Methods/Functors as Actions ## - -If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can easily use an existing -function, method, or functor as an action: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Sum, int(int x, int y)); - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int x)); -}; - -int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } - -class Helper { - public: - bool ComplexJob(int x); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(CalculateSum)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob)); - - foo.Sum(5, 6); // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6). - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10); -``` - -The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be -_compatible_ with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the -latter's arguments can be implicitly converted to the corresponding -arguments of the former, and the former's return type can be -implicitly converted to that of the latter. So, you can invoke -something whose type is _not_ exactly the same as the mock function, -as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh? - -## Invoking a Function/Method/Functor Without Arguments ## - -`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It -passes the mock function's arguments to the function or functor being -invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work -with. If the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the -arguments, it can simply ignore them. - -Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function -without the arguments of the mock function. `Invoke()` allows her to -do that using a wrapper function that throws away the arguments before -invoking an underlining nullary function. Needless to say, this can be -tedious and obscures the intent of the test. - -`InvokeWithoutArgs()` solves this problem. It's like `Invoke()` except -that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the -callee. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int n)); -}; - -bool Job1() { ... } -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1)); - - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1(). -``` - -## Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function ## - -Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer or a functor -(in other words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g. - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, bool(int n, bool (*fp)(int))); -}; -``` - -and you may want to invoke this callable argument: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(...); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no -lambda (yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you -really? - -Well, Google Mock has an action to solve _exactly_ this problem: - -``` - InvokeArgument(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m) -``` - -will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, -with `arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is -a function pointer or a functor, Google Mock handles them both. - -With that, you could write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5)); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just -wrap it inside `ByRef()`: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(bool (*fp)(int, const Helper&))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper))); - // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it, - // will be passed to the callable. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** -wrap the argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will _make a -copy_ of the argument, and pass a _reference to the copy_, instead of -a reference to the original value, to the callable. This is especially -handy when the argument is a temporary value: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi"))); - // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer - // DoThat() receives. Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are - // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes. Yet - // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values - // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action. -``` - -## Ignoring an Action's Result ## - -Sometimes you have an action that returns _something_, but you need an -action that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock -function that returns `void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in -`DoAll()` and it's not the last in the list). `IgnoreResult()` lets -you do that. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Return; - -int Process(const MyData& data); -string DoSomething(); - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Abc, void(const MyData& data)); - MOCK_METHOD0(Xyz, bool()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_)) - // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process)); - // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs - // to return void. - .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Invoke(Process))); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz()) - .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(Invoke(DoSomething)), - // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns. - Return(true))); -``` - -Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already -returns `void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors. - -## Selecting an Action's Arguments ## - -Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and -you have a custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is -called. Trouble is, the custom action only wants three arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - MOCK_METHOD7(Foo, bool(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight)); -... - -bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) { - return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0; -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Uh, won't compile. :-( -``` - -To please the compiler God, you can to define an "adaptor" that has -the same signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the -right arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight) { - return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Now it works. -``` - -But isn't this awkward? - -Google Mock provides a generic _action adaptor_, so you can spend your -time minding more important business than writing your own -adaptors. Here's the syntax: - -``` - WithArgs(action) -``` - -creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at -the given indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs -it. Using `WithArgs`, our original example can be written as: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::WithArgs; -... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1))); - // No need to define your own adaptor. -``` - -For better readability, Google Mock also gives you: - - * `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes _no_ argument, and - * `WithArg(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes _one_ argument. - -As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic -sugar for `WithoutArgs(Inovke(...))`. - -Here are more tips: - - * The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be `Invoke()` -- it can be anything. - * You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g. `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`. - * You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`. - * The types of the selected arguments do _not_ have to match the signature of the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example, if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work. - -## Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions ## - -The selecting-an-action's-arguments recipe showed us one way to make a -mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit -together. The downside is that wrapping the action in -`WithArgs<...>()` can get tedious for people writing the tests. - -If you are defining a function, method, or functor to be used with -`Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an -alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as -`Unused`. This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in -case the types of the uninteresting arguments change. It could also -increase the chance the action function can be reused. For example, -given - -``` - MOCK_METHOD3(Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y)); - MOCK_METHOD3(Bar, double(int index, double x, double y)); -``` - -instead of - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} - -double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); -``` - -you could write - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Unused; - -double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); -``` - -## Sharing Actions ## - -Just like matchers, a Google Mock action object consists of a pointer -to a ref-counted implementation object. Therefore copying actions is -also allowed and very efficient. When the last action that references -the implementation object dies, the implementation object will be -deleted. - -If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, -you may not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action -doesn't have an internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing -no matter how many times it has been called), you can assign it to an -action variable and use that variable repeatedly. For example: - -``` - Action set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true)); - ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ... -``` - -However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you -share the action object. Suppose you have an action factory -`IncrementCounter(init)` which creates an action that increments and -returns a counter whose initial value is `init`, using two actions -created from the same expression and using a shared action will -exihibit different behaviors. Example: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different - // counter than Bar()'s. -``` - -versus - -``` - Action increment = IncrementCounter(0); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 3 - the counter is shared. -``` - -# Misc Recipes on Using Google Mock # - -## Making the Compilation Faster ## - -Believe it or not, the _vast majority_ of the time spent on compiling -a mock class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they -perform non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the -expectations). What's more, mock methods with different signatures -have different types and thus their constructors/destructors need to -be generated by the compiler separately. As a result, if you mock many -different types of methods, compiling your mock class can get really -slow. - -If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition -of your mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body -and into a `.cpp` file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock -class in N files, the compiler only needs to generate its constructor -and destructor once, resulting in a much faster compilation. - -Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a -mock class before applying this recipe: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor, - // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit - // where this mock class is used. - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` - -After the change, it would look like: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here. - MockFoo(); - virtual ~MockFoo(); - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` -and -``` -// File mock_foo.cpp. -#include "path/to/mock_foo.h" - -// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a -// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member -// variables used to implement the mock methods. -MockFoo::MockFoo() {} -MockFoo::~MockFoo() {} -``` - -## Forcing a Verification ## - -When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically -verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will -generate [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) failures -if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to -worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will -be destoyed. - -How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? -Well, it might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are -testing. Suppose there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the -mock object properly - you could end up with a passing test when -there's actually a bug. - -Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but -its implementation may not be 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want -to _force_ Google Mock to verify a mock object before it is -(hopefully) destructed. You can do this with -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`: - -``` -TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) { - using ::testing::Mock; - - MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo; - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...; - // ... other expectations ... - - // server now owns foo. - MyServer server(foo); - server.ProcessRequest(...); - - // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo, - // this will verify the expectations anyway. - Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo); -} // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here. -``` - -**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a -`bool` to indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for -yes), so you can wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if -there is no point going further when the verification has failed. - -## Using Check Points ## - -Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check -points in your test: at each check point, you verify that all existing -expectations on the mock object have been satisfied, and then you set -some new expectations on it as if it's newly created. This allows you -to work with a mock object in "phases" whose sizes are each -manageable. - -One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may -want to put the object you are testing into a certain state, with the -help from a mock object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear -all expectations on the mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can -set fresh expectations on it. - -As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` -function we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you -are using `ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and -want to clear the default actions as well, use -`Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This function does what -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and returns the -same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on -`mock_object` too. - -Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the -expectations in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" -function at specific places. Then you can verify that the mock -function calls do happen at the right time. For example, if you are -exercising code: - -``` -Foo(1); -Foo(2); -Foo(3); -``` - -and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke -`mock.Bar("a")`, but `Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write: - -``` -using ::testing::MockFunction; - -TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { - MyMock mock; - // Class MockFunction has exactly one mock method. It is named - // Call() and has type F. - MockFunction check; - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - } - Foo(1); - check.Call("1"); - Foo(2); - check.Call("2"); - Foo(3); -} -``` - -The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before -check point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", -and nothing should happen between the two check points. The explicit -check points make it easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which -call to `Foo()`. - -## Mocking Destructors ## - -Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the -right time, e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is -called. We already know that you can specify constraints on the order -of mock function calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor -of the mock function. - -This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special -function with special syntax and special semantics, and the -`MOCK_METHOD0` macro doesn't work for it: - -``` - MOCK_METHOD0(~MockFoo, void()); // Won't compile! -``` - -The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same -effect. First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call -it in the destructor, like this: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - // Add the following two lines to the mock class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Die, void()); - virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); } -}; -``` - -(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another -name.) Now, we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` -object dies to testing when its `Die()` method is called: - -``` - MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo; - MockBar* bar = new MockBar; - ... - { - InSequence s; - - // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B(). - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A()); - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die()); - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B()); - } -``` - -And that's that. - -## Using Google Mock and Threads ## - -**IMPORTANT NOTE:** What we describe in this recipe is **ONLY** true on -platforms where Google Mock is thread-safe. Currently these are only -platforms that support the pthreads library (this includes Linux and Mac). -To make it thread-safe on other platforms we only need to implement -some synchronization operations in `"gtest/internal/gtest-port.h"`. - -In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of -code in a single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and -dead locks, and makes debugging your test much easier. - -Yet many programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something -we need to pound on it from more than one thread. Google Mock works -for this purpose too. - -Remember the steps for using a mock: - - 1. Create a mock object `foo`. - 1. Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and `EXPECT_CALL()`. - 1. The code under test calls methods of `foo`. - 1. Optionally, verify and reset the mock. - 1. Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The destructor will automatically verify it. - -If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can -live happily togeter: - - * Execute your _test code_ (as opposed to the code being tested) in _one_ thread. This makes your test easy to follow. - * Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking. - * When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`. Obvious too, huh? - * #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway you want. Google Mock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - unless required by your test logic. - -If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a -mock while another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined -behavior. That's not fun, so don't do it. - -Google Mock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in -the same thread that called the mock function. For example, in - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1)) - .WillOnce(action1); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2)) - .WillOnce(action2); -``` - -if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, -Google Mock will execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread -2. - -Google Mock does _not_ impose a sequence on actions performed in -different threads (doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may -need to cooperate). This means that the execution of `action1` and -`action2` in the above example _may_ interleave. If this is a problem, -you should add proper synchronization logic to `action1` and `action2` -to make the test thread-safe. - - -Also, remember that `DefaultValue` is a global resource that -potentially affects _all_ living mock objects in your -program. Naturally, you won't want to mess with it from multiple -threads or when there still are mocks in action. - -## Controlling How Much Information Google Mock Prints ## - -When Google Mock sees something that has the potential of being an -error (e.g. a mock function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an -uninteresting call, which is allowed but perhaps you forgot to -explicitly ban the call), it prints some warning messages, including -the arguments of the function and the return value. Hopefully this -will remind you to take a look and see if there is indeed a problem. - -Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not -appreciate such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging -your tests or learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, -and wish you could observe every mock call that happens (including -argument values and the return value). Clearly, one size doesn't fit -all. - -You can control how much Google Mock tells you using the -`--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string -with three possible values: - - * `info`: Google Mock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors (most verbose). At this setting, Google Mock will also log any calls to the `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. - * `warning`: Google Mock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose). This is the default. - * `error`: Google Mock will print errors only (least verbose). - -Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your -tests like so: - -``` - ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error"; -``` - -Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable Google Mock serve you better! - -## Running Tests in Emacs ## - -If you build and run your tests in Emacs, the source file locations of -Google Mock and [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) -errors will be highlighted. Just press `` on one of them and -you'll be taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x `` -to jump to the next error. - -To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your -`~/.emacs` file: - -``` -(global-set-key "\M-m" 'compile) ; m is for make -(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error) -(global-set-key [M-up] '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1))) -``` - -Then you can type `M-m` to start a build, or `M-up`/`M-down` to move -back and forth between errors. - -## Fusing Google Mock Source Files ## - -Google Mock's implementation consists of dozens of files (excluding -its own tests). Sometimes you may want them to be packaged up in -fewer files instead, such that you can easily copy them to a new -machine and start hacking there. For this we provide an experimental -Python script `fuse_gmock_files.py` in the `scripts/` directory -(starting with release 1.2.0). Assuming you have Python 2.4 or above -installed on your machine, just go to that directory and run -``` -python fuse_gmock_files.py OUTPUT_DIR -``` - -and you should see an `OUTPUT_DIR` directory being created with files -`gtest/gtest.h`, `gmock/gmock.h`, and `gmock-gtest-all.cc` in it. -These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and -Google Test). Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready -to write tests and use mocks. You can use the -[scrpts/test/Makefile](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/test/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests -against them. - -# Extending Google Mock # - -## Writing New Matchers Quickly ## - -The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers -easily. The syntax: - -``` -MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; } -``` - -will define a matcher with the given name that executes the -statements, which must return a `bool` to indicate if the match -succeeds. Inside the statements, you can refer to the value being -matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by `arg_type`. - -The description string is a `string`-typed expression that documents -what the matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message -when the match fails. It can (and should) reference the special -`bool` variable `negation`, and should evaluate to the description of -the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that of the matcher's -negation when `negation` is `true`. - -For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), -in which case Google Mock will use the sequence of words in the -matcher name as the description. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; } -``` -allows you to write -``` - // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -or, -``` -using ::testing::Not; -... - EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7()); - EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -If the above assertions fail, they will print something like: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 -... - Value of: some_other_expression - Expected: not (is divisible by 7) - Actual: 21 -``` -where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible -by 7)"` are automatically calculated from the matcher name -`IsDivisibleBy7`. - -As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially -those for the negation) may not be so great. You can always override -them with a string expression of your own: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + - " divisible by 7") { - return (arg % 7) == 0; -} -``` - -Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument -named `result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a -better definition of `IsDivisibleBy7` is: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { - if ((arg % 7) == 0) - return true; - - *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7); - return false; -} -``` - -With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6) -``` - -You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print _any additional information_ -that can help a user understand the match result. Note that it should -explain why the match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's -obvious) - this is useful when the matcher is used inside -`Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value itself, as -Google Mock already prints it for you. - -**Notes:** - - 1. The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a `bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an `int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will be `unsigned long`; and so on. - 1. Google Mock doesn't guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be invoked. Therefore the matcher logic must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). This requirement must be satisfied no matter how you define the matcher (e.g. using one of the methods described in the following recipes). In particular, a matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the mock object and Google Mock. - -## Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you -can use the macro: -``` -MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } -``` -where the description string can be either `""` or a string expression -that references `negation` and `param_name`. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -``` -will allow you to write: -``` - EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -``` -which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10): -``` - Value of: Blah("a") - Expected: has absolute value 10 - Actual: -9 -``` - -Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -printed, making the message human-friendly. - -In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to -reference the type of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the -body of `MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write -`value_type` to refer to the type of `value`. - -Google Mock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to -`MATCHER_P10` to support multi-parameter matchers: -``` -MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; } -``` - -Please note that the custom description string is for a particular -**instance** of the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to -actual values. Therefore usually you'll want the parameter values to -be part of the description. Google Mock lets you do that by -referencing the matcher parameters in the description string -expression. - -For example, -``` - using ::testing::PrintToString; - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, - std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " in range [" + - PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { - return low <= arg && arg <= hi; - } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the message: -``` - Expected: is in range [4, 6] -``` - -If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will -contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -``` - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the text: -``` - Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -``` - -For the purpose of typing, you can view -``` -MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } -``` -as shorthand for -``` -template -FooMatcherPk -Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -``` - -When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of -the parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with -the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -explicitly instantiating the template, as in `Foo(5, false)`. -As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -`arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -is used. - -You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a -variable of type `FooMatcherPk`. This can be -useful when composing matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter -or have only one parameter have special types: you can assign `Foo()` -to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and assign `Foo(p)` to a -`FooMatcherP`-typed variable. - -While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -address. - -You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -``` -MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... } -MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... } -``` - -While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining -a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -`MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see -the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher a -lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more -control on the types of the value being matched and the matcher -parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages -that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers -based on parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of -parameters). - -## Writing New Monomorphic Matchers ## - -A matcher of argument type `T` implements -`::testing::MatcherInterface` and does two things: it tests whether a -value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can describe what kind of -values it matches. The latter ability is used for generating readable -error messages when expectations are violated. - -The interface looks like this: - -``` -class MatchResultListener { - public: - ... - // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream - // is NULL. - template - MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x); - - // Returns the underlying ostream. - ::std::ostream* stream(); -}; - -template -class MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual ~MatcherInterface(); - - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener'. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const; -}; -``` - -If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for -example, you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` -describes itself, or you may want your matcher to be polymorphic as -`Eq(value)` is), you can define a matcher to do whatever you want in -two steps: first implement the matcher interface, and then define a -factory function to create a matcher instance. The second step is not -strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher nicer. - -For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is -divisible by 7 and then use it like this: -``` -using ::testing::MakeMatcher; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (n % 7) == 0; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is divisible by 7"; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is not divisible by 7"; - } -}; - -inline Matcher DivisibleBy7() { - return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7())); -``` - -You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional -information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`: - -``` -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const int remainder = n % 7; - if (remainder != 0) { - *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder; - } - return remainder == 0; - } - ... -}; -``` - -Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may general a message like this: -``` -Value of: x -Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2) -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Matchers ## - -You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous -recipe. Just one problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only -works for one particular type of arguments. If you want a -_polymorphic_ matcher that works with arguments of several types (for -instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a `value` as long as `value` == -`x` compiles -- `value` and `x` don't have to share the same type), -you can learn the trick from `"gmock/gmock-matchers.h"` but it's a bit -involved. - -Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher -easily with the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can -define `NotNull()` as an example: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher; - -class NotNullMatcher { - public: - // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class - // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and - // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following. - - // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so - // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. - // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or - // a method template, or even overload it. - template - bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, - MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const { - return p != NULL; - } - - // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. - void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } - - // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. - void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } -}; - -// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class -// to MakePolymorphicMatcher(). Note the return type. -inline PolymorphicMatcher NotNull() { - return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher()); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. -``` - -**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from -`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need -to be virtual. - -Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by -streaming additional information to the `listener` argument in -`MatchAndExplain()`. - -## Writing New Cardinalities ## - -A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell Google Mock how many times -you expect a call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, -you can say `AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`. - -If the built-in set of cardinalities doesn't suit you, you are free to -define your own by implementing the following interface (in namespace -`testing`): - -``` -class CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual ~CardinalityInterface(); - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Describes self to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; -}; -``` - -For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, -you can write - -``` -using ::testing::Cardinality; -using ::testing::CardinalityInterface; -using ::testing::MakeCardinality; - -class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return (call_count % 2) == 0; - } - - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return false; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "called even number of times"; - } -}; - -Cardinality EvenNumber() { - return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3)) - .Times(EvenNumber()); -``` - -## Writing New Actions Quickly ## - -If the built-in actions don't work for you, and you find it -inconvenient to use `Invoke()`, you can use a macro from the `ACTION*` -family to quickly define a new action that can be used in your code as -if it's a built-in action. - -By writing -``` -ACTION(name) { statements; } -``` -in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will -define an action with the given name that executes the statements. -The value returned by `statements` will be used as the return value of -the action. Inside the statements, you can refer to the K-th -(0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`. For example: -``` -ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } -``` -allows you to write -``` -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -arguments. Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: -you'll get a compiler error if `*arg1` doesn't support the `++` -operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock -function's return type. - -Another example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - (*arg2)(5); - Blah(); - *arg1 = 0; - return arg0; -} -``` -defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) -with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument -#1 to 0, and returns argument #0. - -For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following -pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`: - -| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function | -|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| -| `args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function | -| `function_type` | The type of the mock function | - -For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: -``` -int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); -``` -we have: -| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** | -|:-----------------------|:----------------| -| `arg0` | the value of `flag` | -| `arg0_type` | the type `bool` | -| `arg1` | the value of `ptr` | -| `arg1_type` | the type `int*` | -| `args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` | -| `args_type` | the type `std::tr1::tuple` | -| `return_type` | the type `int` | -| `function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` | - -## Writing New Parameterized Actions Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that -we have another macro -``` -ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } -``` - -For example, -``` -ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -``` -will allow you to write -``` -// Returns argument #0 + 5. -... WillOnce(Add(5)); -``` - -For convenience, we use the term _arguments_ for the values used to -invoke the mock function, and the term _parameters_ for the values -used to instantiate an action. - -Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. -Suppose the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the -Google-Mock-defined symbol `param_type` to refer to the type of the -parameter as inferred by the compiler. For example, in the body of -`ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for the type of `n`. - -Google Mock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support -multi-parameter actions. For example, -``` -ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { - double dx = arg0 - x; - double dy = arg1 - y; - return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); -} -``` -lets you write -``` -... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); -``` - -You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the -number of parameters is 0. - -You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: -``` -ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -``` - -## Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION ## - -For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask -you to provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action -parameters. Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. - -Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. -There are several tricks to do that. For example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. - int n = arg0; - ... use n instead of arg0 here ... -} - -ACTION_P(Bar, param) { - // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. - ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); - - // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. - bool flag = param; -} -``` -where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in Google Test -that verifies two types are the same. - -## Writing New Action Templates Quickly ## - -Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that -cannot be inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` -supports that and can be viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and -`ACTION_P*()`. - -The syntax: -``` -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, - HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), - AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -``` - -defines an action template that takes _m_ explicit template parameters -and _n_ value parameters, where _m_ is between 1 and 10, and _n_ is -between 0 and 10. `name_i` is the name of the i-th template -parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a `typename`, an -integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the i-th value -parameter. - -Example: -``` -// DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// function to type T and copies it to *output. -ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, - // Note the comma between int and k: - HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { - *output = T(std::tr1::get(args)); -} -``` - -To create an instance of an action template, write: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where the `t`s are the template arguments and the -`v`s are the value arguments. The value argument -types are inferred by the compiler. For example: -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - int n; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) - .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -``` - -If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -provide additional template arguments: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`. - -`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the -number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following is -unclear: - -``` - OverloadedAction(x); -``` - -Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to -the type of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler -is asked to infer the type of `x`? - -## Using the ACTION Object's Type ## - -If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll -need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define -the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: -| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** | -|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------| -| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar(int_value)` | `FooActionP` | -| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2` | -| ... | ... | ... | - -Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, -`ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of value -parameters, or the action definitions cannot be overloaded on the -number of them. - -## Writing New Monomorphic Actions ## - -While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are -inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous -recipes, they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock -function arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads -to unoptimized compiler error messages that can baffle unfamiliar -users. They also don't allow overloading actions based on parameter -types without jumping through some hoops. - -An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement -`::testing::ActionInterface`, where `F` is the type of the mock -function in which the action will be used. For example: - -``` -template class ActionInterface { - public: - virtual ~ActionInterface(); - - // Performs the action. Result is the return type of function type - // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F. - // - // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would - // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be tr1::tuple. - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0; -}; - -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Action; -using ::testing::ActionInterface; -using ::testing::MakeAction; - -typedef int IncrementMethod(int*); - -class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface { - public: - virtual int Perform(const tr1::tuple& args) { - int* p = tr1::get<0>(args); // Grabs the first argument. - return *p++; - } -}; - -Action IncrementArgument() { - return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_)) - .WillOnce(IncrementArgument()); - - int n = 5; - foo.Baz(&n); // Should return 5 and change n to 6. -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Actions ## - -The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is -all good, except that you need to know the type of the function in -which the action will be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For -example, if you want to use the action in functions with _different_ -types (e.g. like `Return()` and `SetArgPointee()`). - -If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say -it's _polymorphic_. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template -makes it easy to define such an action: - -``` -namespace testing { - -template -PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl); - -} // namespace testing -``` - -As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument -in the mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an -implementation class: - -``` -class ReturnSecondArgumentAction { - public: - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use tr1::get(args). - return tr1::get<1>(args); - } -}; -``` - -This implementation class does _not_ need to inherit from any -particular class. What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` -method template. This method template takes the mock function's -arguments as a tuple in a **single** argument, and returns the result of -the action. It can be either `const` or not, but must be invokable -with exactly one template argument, which is the result type. In other -words, you must be able to call `Perform(args)` where `R` is the -mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple. - -Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the -implementation class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be -convenient to have a wrapper for this: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction; -using ::testing::PolymorphicAction; - -PolymorphicAction ReturnSecondArgument() { - return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction()); -} -``` - -Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the -built-in ones: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, int(bool flag, int n)); - MOCK_METHOD3(DoThat, string(int x, const char* str1, const char* str2)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - ... - foo.DoThis(true, 5); // Will return 5. - foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye"); // Will return "Hi". -``` - -## Teaching Google Mock How to Print Your Values ## - -When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, Google Mock prints the -argument values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion -macros like `EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in -question when the assertion fails. Google Mock and Google Test do this using -Google Test's user-extensible value printer. - -This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL -containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other -types, it prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the -user can figure it out. -[Google Test's advanced guide](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_AdvancedGuide#Teaching_Google_Test_How_to_Print_Your_Values) -explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at -printing your particular type than to dump the bytes. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md deleted file mode 100644 index dcc9156..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12 +0,0 @@ -This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **1.6** -- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.** - - * [ForDummies](V1_6_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock. - * [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference. - * [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock. - * [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_6_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list. - -To contribute code to Google Mock, read: - - * [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch. - * [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md deleted file mode 100644 index 0891b8c..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,439 +0,0 @@ - - -(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error).) - -# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? # -When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc). - -**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community: - - * **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake. - * **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. - -If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks. - -**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java. - -Using Google Mock involves three basic steps: - - 1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class; - 1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax; - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises. - -# Why Google Mock? # -While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_: - - * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. - * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. - * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next. - -In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. - -Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you: - - * You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid". - * Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database). - * Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network). - * You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one. - * You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best. - * You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks. - -We encourage you to use Google Mock as: - - * a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs! - * a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators. - -# Getting Started # -Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just #include `"gtest/gtest.h"` and `"gmock/gmock.h"`, and you are ready to go. - -# A Case for Mock Turtles # -Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface: - -``` -class Turtle { - ... - virtual ~Turtle() {} - virtual void PenUp() = 0; - virtual void PenDown() = 0; - virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0; - virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0; - virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0; - virtual int GetX() const = 0; - virtual int GetY() const = 0; -}; -``` - -(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.) - -You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle. - -Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_. - -# Writing the Mock Class # -If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.) - -## How to Define It ## -Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow: - - 1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`. - 1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has. - 1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so. - 1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_). - 1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. - -After the process, you should have something like: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in Google Mock. -class MockTurtle : public Turtle { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees)); - MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int()); -}; -``` - -You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins. - -**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the -`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line -tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it, -and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the -complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but -it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README). - -## Where to Put It ## -When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?) - -So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed. - -Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # -Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is: - - 1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.). - 1. Create some mock objects. - 1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.). - 1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately. - 1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here's an example: - -``` -#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h" -#include "gmock/gmock.h" -#include "gtest/gtest.h" -using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1 - -TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) { - MockTurtle turtle; // #2 - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3 - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - - Painter painter(&turtle); // #4 - - EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); -} // #5 - -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock - // (and Google Test) before running the tests. - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); -} -``` - -As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this: - -``` -path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation: -Actually: never called; -Expected: called at least once. -``` - -**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation. - -**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap. - -**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions. - -This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier. - -Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks. - -## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ## -If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or -[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to: -``` -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure, - // which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure. - ::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true; - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - ... whatever your testing framework requires ... -} -``` - -This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception -from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this -sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to -notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure. - -A better solution is to use Google Test's -[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_AdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events) -to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to -implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it -should be straightforward. - -If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with -Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is -technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you -cannot use Google Test, please let us know. - -# Setting Expectations # -The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right." - -## General Syntax ## -In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is: - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .Times(cardinality) - .WillOnce(action) - .WillRepeatedly(action); -``` - -The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.) - -The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections. - -This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .Times(5) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(150)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(200)); -``` - -says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL). - -**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier. - -## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ## -When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example: - -``` -// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); -``` - -Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes": - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... -// Expects the turtle to move forward. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); -``` - -`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. - -A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); -``` - -This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units. - -## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ## -The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly. - -An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called. - -We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md). - -The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember: - - * If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. - -**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times? - -## Actions: What Should It Do? ## -Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock. - -First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used. - -Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillOnce(Return(300)); -``` - -This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(300)); -``` - -says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on. - -Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.). - -What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CheatSheet#Actions). - -**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want: - -``` -int n = 100; -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) -.Times(4) -.WillRepeatedly(Return(n++)); -``` - -Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md). - -Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) -.Times(4) -.WillOnce(Return(100)); -``` - -Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions. - -## Using Multiple Expectations ## -So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects. - -By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation. - -**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it. - -## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ## -By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified. - -Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence;... -TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { - ... - { - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp()); - } - Foo(); -} -``` - -By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant. - -In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. - -(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md).) - -## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ## -Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? - -After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()); -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above. - -This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.). - -Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say? - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)); -} -``` - -If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful! - -One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; -... -{ - InSequence s; - - for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - } -} -``` - -By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call). - -## Uninteresting Calls ## -A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called. - -In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure. - -# What Now? # -Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned. - -Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md deleted file mode 100644 index f74715d..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,628 +0,0 @@ - - -Please send your questions to the -[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion -group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have -tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first. - -## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? ## - -In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods). - -## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ## - -After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how -to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative -messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what -we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it. - -Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers -by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, -your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the -`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected. - -Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's -in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than -later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing -matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do: - -If you wrote your matcher like this: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -you'll need to change it to: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` -(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second -argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.) - -If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher -message: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - - virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) const { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - } - ... -}; -``` - -you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into -`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where -the `::std::ostream` was used: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and -add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do -for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`): -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better -failure messages: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher, - MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); -} -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to -`MatchAndExplain()`: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -For more information, you can read these -[two](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers) -[recipes](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers) -from the cookbook. As always, you -are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you -need any help. - -## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ## - -Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy -to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice. -[Here](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework) is how. - -## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ## - -If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you, -try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to -scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the -problems (we call them diseases) your code has. - -To "install", run command: -``` -alias gmd='/scripts/gmock_doctor.py' -``` - -To use it, do: -``` - 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -For example: -``` -make my_test 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it. - -## Can I mock a variadic function? ## - -You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis -(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock. - -The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to -know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what -the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows -the protocol, and we cannot look into his head. - -Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock -object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One -way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function. - -Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. -They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have -constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in -C++ as much as possible. - -## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ## - -If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i)); -}; -``` -You may get the following warning: -``` -warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier -``` - -This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for -example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning: -``` -warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers -``` - -In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the -`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above -is equivalent to: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference. -}; -``` - -In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_ -it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them -up. - -Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method -_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. -That should workaround the VC bug. - -Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here. -If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring -the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For -example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent: -``` -void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const. -void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is. -``` - -## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ## - -We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ -uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest -to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks. - -## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ## - -You might want to run your test with -`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace -of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace, -you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met. - -## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ## - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ## - -When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information -(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and -etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google -Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant -expectations. - -Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, -and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are -however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_. -The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information. - -## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ## - -Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a -virtual destructor? - -Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is -virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following -code: - -``` -class Base { - public: - // Not virtual, but should be. - ~Base() { ... } - ... -}; - -class Derived : public Base { - public: - ... - private: - std::string value_; -}; - -... - Base* p = new Derived; - ... - delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not - // - value_ is leaked. -``` - -By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly -called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker -will be happy. - -## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ## - -When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the -// reverse order. This sucks big time!!! -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's -intent. - -By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular -order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be -explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's -easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it -harder to do so. - -There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either -put the expectations in sequence: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations -// in their natural order. -{ - InSequence s; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the -expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this -allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early -(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase) -and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock -searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be -possible. - -## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ## - -When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the -latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the -warning. - -Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's -constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from -test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which -are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up -part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's -no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If -we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs -may creep in unnoticed. - -If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(...); -``` - -instead of - -``` -ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillByDefault(...); -``` - -This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be -printed. - -Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag. -If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less -verbose level. - -## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ## - -If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not -supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own -actions using -[MakeAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions) or -[MakePolymorphicAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions), -or you can write a stub function and invoke it using -[Invoke()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors). - -## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ## - -What?! I think it's beautiful. :-) - -While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some -extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it -has. - -Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument: -``` -virtual int GetSize(const map& m); -``` - -Using the proposed syntax, it would be: -``` -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map& m); -``` - -Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that -`const map& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work -around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but -that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this -problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair -of parentheses: -``` -// This compiles fine. -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map& m)); -``` - -You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected -comma, but that's much rarer. - -Other advantages include: - 1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax. - 1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it. - 1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`! - -## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ## - -You can, but you need to make some changes. - -In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, -it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less -flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better -off defining a small interface and call the function through that -interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work -initially, but usually pays for itself quickly. - -This Google Testing Blog -[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) -says it excellently. Check it out. - -## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ## - -I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-) - -With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be -tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and -sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in -the latter case? - -When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and -assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an -expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing". - -Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: -instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects -verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon -as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the -error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to -do than state-based testing. - -If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to -simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. -Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for -mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think -that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your -problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-) - -## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ## - -By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. - -What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any -expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not -interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called -any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say -it's not OK to call the function! - -What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but -forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While -one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and -prints you a note. - -So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any -uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make -your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments -when an uninteresting call is encountered. - -## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ## - -Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient -for your circumstance. - -Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it -using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in -functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining -`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is -easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of -functions the action can be used in, and implementing -`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of -`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example. - -## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ## - -You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return -when the mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the -side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You -need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`. - -See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects) for more details and an example. - - -## My question is not in your FAQ! ## - -If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are -some other resources you can use: - - 1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list), - 1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics), - 1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.). - -Please note that creating an issue in the -[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_ -a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a -very small number of people. - -When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the -following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's -not enough information in your question): - - * the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version), - * your operating system, - * the name and version of your compiler, - * the complete command line flags you give to your compiler, - * the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation), - * the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md deleted file mode 100644 index db421e5..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,556 +0,0 @@ - - -# Defining a Mock Class # - -## Mocking a Normal Class ## - -Given -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual ~Foo(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0; - virtual string Describe(int type) = 0; - virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count)); -}; -``` - -To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls, -or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures: -``` -NiceMock nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -StrictMock strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo. -``` - -## Mocking a Class Template ## - -To mock -``` -template -class StackInterface { - public: - ... - virtual ~StackInterface(); - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; -``` -(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: -``` -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - public: - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ## - -If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you -can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros -described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling -convention as the first argument to the macro. For example, -``` - MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y)); -``` -where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `` on Windows. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # - -The typical flow is: - 1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted. - 1. Create the mock objects. - 1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects. - 1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?). - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. - 1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here is an example: -``` -using ::testing::Return; // #1 - -TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) { - MockFoo foo; // #2 - - ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3 - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - // ... other default actions ... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4 - .Times(3) - .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5")); - // ... other expectations ... - - EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5 -} // #6 -``` - -# Setting Default Actions # - -Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that -returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. - -To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally: -``` -using ::testing::DefaultValue; - -DefaultValue::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned. -// ... use the mocks ... -DefaultValue::Clear(); // Resets the default value. -``` - -To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`: -``` -ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .WillByDefault(action); -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be -called? What will it do?): -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .With(multi_argument_matcher) ? - .Times(cardinality) ? - .InSequence(sequences) * - .After(expectations) * - .WillOnce(action) * - .WillRepeatedly(action) ? - .RetiresOnSaturation(); ? -``` - -If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be: - - * `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`; - * `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or - * `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0. - -A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time. - -# Matchers # - -A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside -`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value -directly: - -| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. | -|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------| -| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. | - -Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are -divided into several categories: - -## Wildcard ## -|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.| -|:--|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`A()` or `An()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. | - -## Generic Comparison ## - -|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`| -|:---------------------|:------------------| -|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`| -|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` | -|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`| -|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` | -|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`| -|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).| -|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).| -|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.| -|`TypedEq(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.| - -Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's -modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` -doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`, -e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure -`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your -matcher will be changed. - -## Floating-Point Matchers ## - -|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. | - -The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They -automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute -value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to -the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to -return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as -equal, which is often what a user wants. - -|`DoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal.| -|:------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`FloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` |`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. | -|`NanSensitiveDoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | -|`NanSensitiveFloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. | - -## String Matchers ## - -The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object: - -|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.| -|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------| -|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. | -|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. | -|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.| -|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. | -|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. | -|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.| -|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. | -|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. | - -`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` use the regular expression -syntax defined -[here](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Regular_Expression_Syntax). -`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide -strings as well. - -## Container Matchers ## - -Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line, -match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use: - -| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. | -|:-------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where _every_ element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. | -| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. | -| `ElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `ElementsAreArray(array)`, or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, vector, or C-style array. | -| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty container (`container.empty()`). | -| `Pointwise(m, container)` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. See more detail below. | -| `SizeIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose size matches `m`. E.g. `SizeIs(2)` or `SizeIs(Lt(2))`. | -| `UnorderedElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, and under some permutation each element matches an `ei` (for a different `i`), which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. | -| `UnorderedElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array)`, or `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `UnorderedElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, vector, or C-style array. | -| `WhenSorted(m)` | When `argument` is sorted using the `<` operator, it matches container matcher `m`. E.g. `WhenSorted(UnorderedElementsAre(1, 2, 3))` verifies that `argument` contains elements `1`, `2`, and `3`, ignoring order. | -| `WhenSortedBy(comparator, m)` | The same as `WhenSorted(m)`, except that the given comparator instead of `<` is used to sort `argument`. E.g. `WhenSortedBy(std::greater(), ElementsAre(3, 2, 1))`. | - -Notes: - - * These matchers can also match: - 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and - 1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)). - * The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays). - * `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` should be a matcher for `std::tr1::tuple` where `T` and `U` are the element type of the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example, to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==` but has an `Equals()` method, one might write: - -``` -using ::std::tr1::get; -MATCHER(FooEq, "") { - return get<0>(arg).Equals(get<1>(arg)); -} -... -EXPECT_THAT(actual_foos, Pointwise(FooEq(), expected_foos)); -``` - -## Member Matchers ## - -|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| -|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.| -|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. | -|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.| - -## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ## - -|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.| -|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Pointer Matchers ## - -|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.| -|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| - -## Multiargument Matchers ## - -Technically, all matchers match a _single_ value. A "multi-argument" -matcher is just one that matches a _tuple_. The following matchers can -be used to match a tuple `(x, y)`: - -|`Eq()`|`x == y`| -|:-----|:-------| -|`Ge()`|`x >= y`| -|`Gt()`|`x > y` | -|`Le()`|`x <= y`| -|`Lt()`|`x < y` | -|`Ne()`|`x != y`| - -You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments -(or reorder them) to participate in the matching: - -|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.| -|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Args(m)`|The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`.| - -## Composite Matchers ## - -You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers: - -|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------| -|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.| -|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -## Adapters for Matchers ## - -|`MatcherCast(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher`.| -|:------------------|:--------------------------------------| -|`SafeMatcherCast(m)`| [safely casts](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Casting_Matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher`. | -|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.| - -## Matchers as Predicates ## - -|`Matches(m)(value)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor.| -|:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. | -|`Value(value, m)` |evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. | - -## Defining Matchers ## - -| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. | -|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------| -| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. | -| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " between " + PrintToString(a) + " and " + PrintToString(b)) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. | - -**Notes:** - - 1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - 1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). - 1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string. - -## Matchers as Test Assertions ## - -|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/Primer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.| -|:---------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. | - -# Actions # - -**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked. - -## Returning a Value ## - -|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.| -|:---------|:----------------------------------| -|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type at the time the expectation is set, not when the action is executed.| -|`ReturnArg()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`ReturnNew(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.| -|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. | -|`ReturnPointee(ptr)`|Return the value pointed to by `ptr`.| -|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. | -|`ReturnRefOfCopy(value)`|Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action.| - -## Side Effects ## - -|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.| -|:-------------------------|:--------------------------| -| `DeleteArg()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. | -| `SaveArg(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SaveArgPointee(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. | -| `SetArgReferee(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. | -|`SetArgPointee(value)` |Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.| -|`SetArgumentPointee(value)`|Same as `SetArgPointee(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0.| -|`SetArrayArgument(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.| -|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.| -|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.| - -## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ## - -|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.| -|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. | -|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. | -|`InvokeArgument(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.| - -The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value -of the action. - -When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`: -``` - double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); } - ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance)); -``` - -In `InvokeArgument(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example, -``` - InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo)) -``` -calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference. - -## Default Action ## - -|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).| -|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------| - -**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error. - -## Composite Actions ## - -|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. | -|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. | -|`WithArg(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithArgs(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. | -|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. | - -## Defining Actions ## - -| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. | -|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. | -| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. | - -The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class. - -# Cardinalities # - -These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called: - -|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.| -|:------------|:----------------------------------------------| -|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. | -|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. | -|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.| -|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.| - -# Expectation Order # - -By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some -or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two -ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or -together. - -## The After Clause ## - -``` -using ::testing::Expectation; -... -Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX()); -Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY()); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(init_x, init_y); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and -`InitY()` have been called. - -If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you -write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them: - -``` -using ::testing::ExpectationSet; -... -ExpectationSet all_inits; -for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) { - all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i)); -} -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .After(all_inits); -``` -says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been -initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized -before the others). - -Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't -affect the meaning of the `.After()`. - -## Sequences ## - -When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to -specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given -each expectation in the chain a different name. All expected
-calls in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -specified. - -``` -using ::testing::Sequence; -Sequence s1, s2; -... -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset()) - .InSequence(s1, s2) - .WillOnce(Return(true)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize()) - .InSequence(s1) - .WillOnce(Return(1)); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A())) - .InSequence(s2) - .WillOnce(Return("dummy")); -``` -says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_ -`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order. - -To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently: -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -{ - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(...)...; -} -``` -says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in -strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.) - -# Verifying and Resetting a Mock # - -Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier: -``` -using ::testing::Mock; -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj); -... -// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj; -// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL(); -// returns true iff successful. -Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj); -``` - -You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't -need to be verified: -``` -Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj); -``` - -# Mock Classes # - -Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template -``` -class MockFunction { - public: - MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An)); -}; -``` -See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Using_Check_Points) for one application of it. - -# Flags # - -| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. | -|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------| -| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md deleted file mode 100644 index 419a001..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3432 +0,0 @@ - - -You can find recipes for using Google Mock here. If you haven't yet, -please read the [ForDummies](V1_7_ForDummies.md) document first to make sure you understand -the basics. - -**Note:** Google Mock lives in the `testing` name space. For -readability, it is recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in -your file before using the name `Foo` defined by Google Mock. We omit -such `using` statements in this page for brevity, but you should do it -in your own code. - -# Creating Mock Classes # - -## Mocking Private or Protected Methods ## - -You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD*`) in a -`public:` section of the mock class, regardless of the method being -mocked being `public`, `protected`, or `private` in the base class. -This allows `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function -from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change -the access level of a virtual function in the base class.) Example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - ... - virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0; - - protected: - virtual void Resume(); - - private: - virtual int GetTimeOut(); -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Transform, bool(Gadget* g)); - - // The following must be in the public section, even though the - // methods are protected or private in the base class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Resume, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(GetTimeOut, int()); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Overloaded Methods ## - -You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required: - -``` -class Foo { - ... - - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo. - virtual ~Foo(); - - // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments. - virtual int Add(Element x); - virtual int Add(int times, Element x); - - // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object. - virtual Bar& GetBar(); - virtual const Bar& GetBar() const; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - MOCK_METHOD2(Add, int(int times, Element x); - - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -``` - -**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the -compiler will give you a warning about some methods in the base class -being hidden. To fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - using Foo::Add; - MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x)); - // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x); - ... -}; -``` - -## Mocking Class Templates ## - -To mock a class template, append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros: - -``` -template -class StackInterface { - ... - // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface. - virtual ~StackInterface(); - - virtual int GetSize() const = 0; - virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0; -}; - -template -class MockStack : public StackInterface { - ... - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x)); -}; -``` - -## Mocking Nonvirtual Methods ## - -Google Mock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in what we call _hi-perf -dependency injection_. - -In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real -class, your mock class will be _unrelated_ to the real class, but -contain methods with the same signatures. The syntax for mocking -non-virtual methods is the _same_ as mocking virtual methods: - -``` -// A simple packet stream class. None of its members is virtual. -class ConcretePacketStream { - public: - void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet); - const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const; - size_t NumberOfPackets() const; - ... -}; - -// A mock packet stream class. It inherits from no other, but defines -// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets(). -class MockPacketStream { - public: - MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(GetPacket, const Packet*(size_t packet_number)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(NumberOfPackets, size_t()); - ... -}; -``` - -Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the -real class. That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it. - -Next, you need a way to say that you want to use -`ConcretePacketStream` in production code, and use `MockPacketStream` -in tests. Since the functions are not virtual and the two classes are -unrelated, you must specify your choice at _compile time_ (as opposed -to run time). - -One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet -stream. More specifically, you will give your code a template type -argument for the type of the packet stream. In production, you will -instantiate your template with `ConcretePacketStream` as the type -argument. In tests, you will instantiate the same template with -`MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write: - -``` -template -void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... } - -template -class PacketReader { - public: - void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num); -}; -``` - -Then you can use `CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in production code, and use -`CreateConnection()` and -`PacketReader` in tests. - -``` - MockPacketStream mock_stream; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...; - .. set more expectations on mock_stream ... - PacketReader reader(&mock_stream); - ... exercise reader ... -``` - -## Mocking Free Functions ## - -It's possible to use Google Mock to mock a free function (i.e. a -C-style function or a static method). You just need to rewrite your -code to use an interface (abstract class). - -Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, -introduce an interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls -the free function: - -``` -class FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0; -}; - -class File : public FileInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) { - return OpenFile(path, mode); - } -}; -``` - -Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's -easy to mock out the function. - -This may seem much hassle, but in practice you often have multiple -related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the -per-function syntactic overhead will be much lower. - -If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by -virtual functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can -combine this with the recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods.md). - -## The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy ## - -If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, Google Mock -will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is: - - * New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called. - * However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, he can add an `EXPECT_CALL()` to suppress the warning. - -However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call" -warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all -of them as errors. Google Mock lets you make the decision on a -per-mock-object basis. - -Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`: - -``` -TEST(...) { - MockFoo mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, it will be -reported by Google Mock as a warning. However, if you rewrite your -test to use `NiceMock` instead, the warning will be gone, -resulting in a cleaner test output: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -`NiceMock` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used -wherever `MockFoo` is accepted. - -It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as -`NiceMock` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors: - -``` -using ::testing::NiceMock; - -TEST(...) { - NiceMock mock_foo(5, "hi"); // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi"). - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... -} -``` - -The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all -uninteresting calls failures: - -``` -using ::testing::StrictMock; - -TEST(...) { - StrictMock mock_foo; - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis()); - ... code that uses mock_foo ... - - // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() - // is called. -} -``` - -There are some caveats though (I don't like them just as much as the -next guy, but sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations): - - 1. `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only work for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD*` family of macros **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. `NiceMock >`) is **not** supported. - 1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml). - 1. During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is _not_ nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.) - -Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you should't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock, however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the last resort. - -## Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code ## - -Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly -uninteresting. For example, - -``` -class LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, - const struct tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0; -}; -``` - -This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (let's -say that the `message` argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock -it as is, using the mock will be awkward. If, however, we try to -simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all clients depending on -it, which is often infeasible. - -The trick is to re-dispatch the method in the mock class: - -``` -class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink { - public: - ... - virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename, - const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time, - const char* message, size_t message_len) { - // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and - // log message. - Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len)); - } - - // Implements the mock method: - // - // void Log(LogSeverity severity, - // const string& file_path, - // const string& message); - MOCK_METHOD3(Log, void(LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path, - const string& message)); -}; -``` - -By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make -the mock class much more user-friendly. - -## Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes ## - -Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement -interfaces. In order to test your code that uses such a class (let's -call it `Concrete`), you may be tempted to make the methods of -`Concrete` virtual and then mock it. - -Try not to do that. - -Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an -extension point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This -weakens your control on the class because now it's harder to maintain -the class' invariants. You should make a function virtual only when -there is a valid reason for a subclass to override it. - -Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight -coupling between the class and the tests - any small change in the -class may invalidate your tests and make test maintenance a pain. - -To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding -to interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code -would define an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that -interface as an adaptor on top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily -mock that interface to observe how your code is doing. - -This technique incurs some overhead: - - * You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem). - * There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn. - -However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better -testability: - - * `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way, which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more productive. - * If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be insulated from this change. - -Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they -will end up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally -understandable. However, there are two reasons why it may not be the -case: - - * Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the same code. - * If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it, just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib` sub-directory) and let many projects use it. - -You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular -problem, but I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been -practicing this for a long time and it's a proven effective technique -applicable in a wide variety of situations. :-) - -## Delegating Calls to a Fake ## - -Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an -interface. For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo() {} - virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0; - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0; -}; - -class FakeFoo : public Foo { - public: - virtual char DoThis(int n) { - return (n > 0) ? '+' : - (n < 0) ? '-' : '0'; - } - - virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) { - *p = strlen(s); - } -}; -``` - -Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations -on it. However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default -behavior, as duplicating it in the mock object is, well, a lot of -work. - -When you define the mock class using Google Mock, you can have it -delegate its default action to a fake class you already have, using -this pattern: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Normal mock method definitions using Google Mock. - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, char(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThat, void(const char* s, int* p)); - - // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object. - // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements. - void DelegateToFake() { - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_, _)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThat)); - } - private: - FakeFoo fake_; // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock. -}; -``` - -With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember -that if you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or -`EXPECT_CALL()`, the fake will be called upon to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) { - MockFoo foo; - foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation. - - // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any. - - // No action specified, meaning to use the default action. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _)); - - int n = 0; - EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked. - foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked. - EXPECT_EQ(2, n); -} -``` - -**Some tips:** - - * If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`. - * In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake implementation you intend to use. - * The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`), see the "Selecting Between Overloaded Functions" section on this page; to disambiguate a fake function (the one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter, you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)` (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.). - * Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong. Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up. Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an intermediate step when you are refactoring your code. - -Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on -why it may be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for -low-level system operations. In particular, it does file and I/O -operations. And suppose you want to test how your code uses `System` -to do I/O, and you just want the file operations to work normally. If -you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll have to provide a fake -implementation for the file operation part, which suggests that -`System` is taking on too many roles. - -Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface -and split `System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock -`IOOps` without mocking `FileOps`. - -## Delegating Calls to a Real Object ## - -When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes -their behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This -difference could be either intentional (as in simulating an error such -that you can test the error handling code) or unintentional. If your -mocks have different behaviors than the real objects by mistake, you -could end up with code that passes the tests but fails in production. - -You can use the _delegating-to-real_ technique to ensure that your -mock has the same behavior as the real object while retaining the -ability to validate calls. This technique is very similar to the -delegating-to-fake technique, the difference being that we use a real -object instead of a fake. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AtLeast; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MockFoo() { - // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object. - ON_CALL(*this, DoThis()) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThis)); - ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThat)); - ... - } - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, ...); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, ...); - ... - private: - Foo real_; -}; -... - - MockFoo mock; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis()) - .Times(3); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi")) - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - ... use mock in test ... -``` - -With this, Google Mock will verify that your code made the right calls -(with the right arguments, in the right order, called the right number -of times, etc), and a real object will answer the calls (so the -behavior will be the same as in production). This gives you the best -of both worlds. - -## Delegating Calls to a Parent Class ## - -Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure -virtual. In reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method -that is not pure (i.e, it already has an implementation). For example: - -``` -class Foo { - public: - virtual ~Foo(); - - virtual void Pure(int n) = 0; - virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... } -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); -}; -``` - -Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of -`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub -action, or perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all -(but it would be oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class -whenever you don't need to mock one of its methods). - -The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the -real methods in the base class: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Mocking a pure method. - MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n)); - // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed. - MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str)); - - // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo. - int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); } -}; -``` - -Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`: - -``` -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Concrete(_)) - .WillByDefault(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete)); -``` - -(Why don't we just write `Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concrete)`? If you do -that, `MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite -recursion) since `Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ -works.) - -# Using Matchers # - -## Matching Argument Values Exactly ## - -You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)) - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar)); -``` - -## Using Simple Matchers ## - -You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::Return; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5))) // The argument must be >= 5. - .WillOnce(Return('a')); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull())); - // The second argument must not be NULL. -``` - -A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::NotNull; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull())); -``` - -## Combining Matchers ## - -You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`, -`AnyOf()`, and `Not()`: - -``` -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::HasSubstr; -using ::testing::Ne; -using ::testing::Not; -... - // The argument must be > 5 and != 10. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5), - Ne(10)))); - - // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah". - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")), - NULL)); -``` - -## Casting Matchers ## - -Google Mock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler -can catch your mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for -example, if you use `Eq(5)` to match a `string` argument). Good for -you! - -Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler -to give you some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for -`long` and the argument you want to match is `int`. While the two -types aren't exactly the same, there is nothing really wrong with -using a `Matcher` to match an `int` - after all, we can first -convert the `int` argument to a `long` before giving it to the -matcher. - -To support this need, Google Mock gives you the -`SafeMatcherCast(m)` function. It casts a matcher `m` to type -`Matcher`. To ensure safety, Google Mock checks that (let `U` be the -type `m` accepts): - - 1. Type `T` can be implicitly cast to type `U`; - 1. When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`); and - 1. When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value). - -The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met. - -Here's one example: - -``` -using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast; - -// A base class and a child class. -class Base { ... }; -class Derived : public Base { ... }; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, void(Derived* derived)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - // m is a Matcher we got from somewhere. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast(m))); -``` - -If you find `SafeMatcherCast(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar -function `MatcherCast(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works -as long as you can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`. - -`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system -(`static_cast` isn't always safe as it could throw away information, -for example), so be careful not to misuse/abuse it. - -## Selecting Between Overloaded Functions ## - -If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may -need some help on which overloaded version it is. - -To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, -use the `Const()` argument wrapper. - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar1, bar2; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) // The non-const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1)); - EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar()) // The const GetBar(). - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2)); -``` - -(`Const()` is defined by Google Mock and returns a `const` reference -to its argument.) - -To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments -but different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type -of a matcher, either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher()`, or -using a matcher whose type is fixed (`TypedEq`, `An()`, -etc): - -``` -using ::testing::An; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::TypedEq; - -class MockPrinter : public Printer { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(int n)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(char c)); -}; - -TEST(PrinterTest, Print) { - MockPrinter printer; - - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An())); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher(Lt(5)))); // void Print(int); - EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq('a'))); // void Print(char); - - printer.Print(3); - printer.Print(6); - printer.Print('a'); -} -``` - -## Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments ## - -When a mock method is called, the _last_ matching expectation that's -still active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you -can make a method do different things depending on its argument values -like this: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - // The default case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('b')); - - // The more specific case. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5))) - .WillRepeatedly(Return('a')); -``` - -Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will -be returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned. - -## Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole ## - -Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For -example, we may want to say that the first argument must be less than -the second argument. The `With()` clause allows us to match -all arguments of a mock function as a whole. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Lt; -using ::testing::Ne; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _)) - .With(Lt()); -``` - -says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be -less than the second argument. - -The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type -`Matcher >`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the -types of the function arguments. - -You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The -two forms are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable -than `.With(Lt())`. - -You can use `Args(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments -(as a tuple) against `m`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Args; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah(_, _, _)) - .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt()))); -``` - -says that `Blah()` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where -`x < y < z`. - -As a convenience and example, Google Mock provides some matchers for -2-tuples, including the `Lt()` matcher above. See the [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md) for -the complete list. - -Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own -(e.g. `.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be -written to take a `tr1::tuple` as its argument; Google Mock will pass the `n` -selected arguments as _one_ single tuple to the predicate. - -## Using Matchers as Predicates ## - -Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also -knows how to describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates -as arguments (e.g. those defined in STL's `` header), and -it would be a shame if Google Mock matchers are not allowed to -participate. - -Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is -expected by wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example, - -``` -#include -#include - -std::vector v; -... -// How many elements in v are >= 10? -const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10))); -``` - -Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using -Google Mock, this gives you a way to conveniently construct composite -predicates (doing the same using STL's `` header is just -painful). For example, here's a predicate that's satisfied by any -number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50: - -``` -Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50))) -``` - -## Using Matchers in Google Test Assertions ## - -Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe -themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in -[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions. It's -called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`: - -``` - ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher); // Asserts that value matches matcher. - EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher); // The non-fatal version. -``` - -For example, in a Google Test test you can write: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" - -using ::testing::AllOf; -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Le; -using ::testing::MatchesRegex; -using ::testing::StartsWith; -... - - EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello")); - EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+")); - ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10))); -``` - -which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and -`Baz()`, and verifies that: - - * `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`. - * `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`. - * `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10]. - -The nice thing about these macros is that _they read like -English_. They generate informative messages too. For example, if the -first `EXPECT_THAT()` above fails, the message will be something like: - -``` -Value of: Foo() - Actual: "Hi, world!" -Expected: starts with "Hello" -``` - -**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was stolen from the -[Hamcrest](http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/) project, which adds -`assertThat()` to JUnit. - -## Using Predicates as Matchers ## - -Google Mock provides a built-in set of matchers. In case you find them -lacking, you can use an arbitray unary predicate function or functor -as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type -you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` -function, for example: - -``` -using ::testing::Truly; - -int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; } -... - - // Bar() must be called with an even number. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven))); -``` - -Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return -`bool`. It works as long as the return value can be used as the -condition in statement `if (condition) ...`. - -## Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable ## - -When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, Google Mock saves -away a copy of `bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, Google Mock -compares the argument to `Foo()` with the saved copy of `bar`. This -way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being modified or destroyed -after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true when you use -matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on. - -But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You -could define your own matcher function and use it with `Truly()`, as -the previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get -away from it if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after -the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. Just tell Google Mock that it should -save a reference to `bar`, instead of a copy of it. Here's how: - -``` -using ::testing::Eq; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::Lt; -... - // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar)))); - - // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar)))); -``` - -Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the -`EXPECT_CALL()`, or the result is undefined. - -## Validating a Member of an Object ## - -Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When -matching the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object -against a fixed object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, -you may need to validate a certain member variable or the result of a -certain getter method of the object. You can do this with `Field()` -and `Property()`. More specifically, - -``` -Field(&Foo::bar, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable -satisfies matcher `m`. - -``` -Property(&Foo::baz, m) -``` - -is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns -a value that satisfies matcher `m`. - -For example: - -> | `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. | -|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------| -> | `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. | - -Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no -argument and be declared as `const`. - -BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to -objects. For instance, - -``` -Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) -``` - -matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, -the match will always fail regardless of the inner matcher. - -What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? -Remember that there is `AllOf()`. - -## Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument ## - -C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers -like `IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a -pointer, but what if you want to make sure the value _pointed to_ by -the pointer, instead of the pointer itself, has a certain property? -Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)` matcher. - -`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer iff `m` matches the value the pointer -points to. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge; -using ::testing::Pointee; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3)))); -``` - -expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value -greater than or equal to 3. - -One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as -a match failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of - -``` - AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m)) -``` - -without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test. - -Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers -**and** smart pointers (`linked_ptr`, `shared_ptr`, `scoped_ptr`, and -etc)? - -What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use -nested `Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example, -`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer -that points to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...). - -## Testing a Certain Property of an Object ## - -Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain -property, but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want -good error messages, you should define a matcher. If you want to do it -quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function. - -Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, -which has an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you -want to constrain that the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` -value is a given number. Here's how you can define a matcher to do it: - -``` -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum) - : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_; - } - private: - const int expected_sum_; -}; - -inline Matcher BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) { - return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum)); -} - -... - - EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...; -``` - -## Matching Containers ## - -Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to -a mock function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL -containers support the `==` operator, you can write -`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a -container exactly. - -Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the -first element must be an exact match, but the second element can be -any positive number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often -have a small number of elements, and having to define the expected -container out-of-line is a bit of a hassle. - -You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in -such cases: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ElementsAre; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which -must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -If you instead write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre; -... - - MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector& numbers)); -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5))); -``` - -It means that the container must have 4 elements, which under some -permutation must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively. - -`ElementsAre()` and `UnorderedElementsAre()` are overloaded to take 0 -to 10 arguments. If more are needed, you can place them in a C-style -array and use `ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` -instead: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - - // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values. - const int expected_vector1[] = { 1, 5, 2, 4, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1))); - - // Or, an array of element matchers. - Matcher expected_vector2 = { 1, Gt(2), _, 3, ... }; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2))); -``` - -In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the -array size cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give -`ElementsAreArray()` an additional argument to specify the array size: - -``` -using ::testing::ElementsAreArray; -... - int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count]; - ... fill expected_vector3 with values ... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count))); -``` - -**Tips:** - - * `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match _any_ container that implements the STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above pattern. - * You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional) containers. - * If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`. - * The order of elements _matters_ for `ElementsAre*()`. Therefore don't use it with containers whose element order is undefined (e.g. `hash_map`). - -## Sharing Matchers ## - -Under the hood, a Google Mock matcher object consists of a pointer to -a ref-counted implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and -very efficient, as only the pointer is copied. When the last matcher -that references the implementation object dies, the implementation -object will be deleted. - -Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again -and again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a -matcher variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example, - -``` - Matcher in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10)); - ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ... -``` - -# Setting Expectations # - -## Knowing When to Expect ## - -`ON_CALL` is likely the single most under-utilized construct in Google Mock. - -There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object: `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when a mock method is called, but _doesn't imply any expectation on the method being called._ `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an expectation that _the method will be called with the given arguments, for the given number of times_ (and _in the given order_ when you specify the order too). - -Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every `EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having more constraints than necessary is _baaad_ - even worse than not having enough constraints. - -This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests? - -The answer, lies in _what_ a test should verify. **A good test verifies the contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed. - -Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test. In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's wrong just from the test log itself. - -So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier to maintain when you do need to maintain them). - -## Ignoring Uninteresting Calls ## - -If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't -say anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, -Google Mock will perform its default action to allow the test program -to continue. If you are not happy with the default action taken by -Google Mock, you can override it using `DefaultValue::Set()` -(described later in this document) or `ON_CALL()`. - -Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock -method (via `EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some -expectation. If this function is called but the arguments don't match -any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement, it will be an error. - -## Disallowing Unexpected Calls ## - -If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just -list all the expected calls: - -``` -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10))) - .Times(AnyNumber()); -``` - -A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements will be an error. - -## Expecting Ordered Calls ## - -Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier takes precedence -when Google Mock tries to match a function call with an expectation, -by default calls don't have to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` -statements are written. For example, if the arguments match the -matchers in the third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in the first two, -then the third expectation will be used. - -If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the -expectations, put the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you -define a variable of type `InSequence`: - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::InSequence; - - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5)); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_)) - .Times(2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6)); - } -``` - -In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two -calls to `bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are -in turn followed by a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred -out-of-order, Google Mock will report an error. - -## Expecting Partially Ordered Calls ## - -Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can -lead to brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring -before both `B` and `C`, but aren't interested in the relative order -of `B` and `C`. In this case, the test should reflect our real intent, -instead of being overly constraining. - -Google Mock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic -graph) on the calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the -[After](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CheatSheet#The_After_Clause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`. - -Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the -`InSequence` class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less -flexible than `After()`, but more convenient when you have long chains -of sequential calls, as it doesn't require you to come up with -different names for the expectations in the chains. Here's how it -works: - -If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an -edge from node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get -a DAG. We use the term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this -DAG. Now, if we decompose the DAG into sequences, we just need to know -which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()` belongs to in order to be able to -reconstruct the orginal DAG. - -So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two -things: first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each -`EXPECT_CALL()` say which `Sequence` objects it is part -of. Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are -written. For example, - -``` - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, A()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, B()) - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(bar, C()) - .InSequence(s2); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, D()) - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> -C -> D`): - -``` - +---> B - | - A ---| - | - +---> C ---> D -``` - -This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before -D. There's no restriction about the order other than these. - -## Controlling When an Expectation Retires ## - -When a mock method is called, Google Mock only consider expectations -that are still active. An expectation is active when created, and -becomes inactive (aka _retires_) when a call that has to occur later -has occurred. For example, in - -``` - using ::testing::_; - using ::testing::Sequence; - - Sequence s1, s2; - - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()) - .InSequence(s1, s2); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty.")) // #2 - .InSequence(s1); - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found.")) // #3 - .InSequence(s2); -``` - -as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning -`"File too large."` is logged after this, it will be an error. - -Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's -saturated. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")); // #2 -``` - -says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File -too large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will -match again and result in an upper-bound-violated error. - -If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as -soon as it becomes saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _)); // #1 - EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large.")) // #2 - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the -message `"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second -will match #1 - there will be no error. - -# Using Actions # - -## Returning References from Mock Methods ## - -If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use -`ReturnRef()` instead of `Return()` to return a result: - -``` -using ::testing::ReturnRef; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Bar bar; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar()) - .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar)); -``` - -## Returning Live Values from Mock Methods ## - -The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is -_created_, and always returns the same value whenever it's -executed. Sometimes you may want to instead return the _live_ value of -`x` (i.e. its value at the time when the action is _executed_.). - -If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using -`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References -from Mock Methods"). However, Google Mock doesn't let you use -`ReturnRef()` in a mock function whose return type is not a reference, -as doing that usually indicates a user error. So, what shall you do? - -You may be tempted to try `ByRef()`: - -``` -using testing::ByRef; -using testing::Return; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(GetValue, int()); -}; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x))); - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); -``` - -Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error: - -``` -Value of: foo.GetValue() - Actual: 0 -Expected: 42 -``` - -The reason is that `Return(value)` converts `value` to the actual -return type of the mock function at the time when the action is -_created_, not when it is _executed_. (This behavior was chosen for -the action to be safe when `value` is a proxy object that references -some temporary objects.) As a result, `ByRef(x)` is converted to an -`int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when the expectation is set, -and `Return(ByRef(x))` will always return 0. - -`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem -specifically. It returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time -the action is _executed_: - -``` -using testing::ReturnPointee; -... - int x = 0; - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x)); // Note the & here. - x = 42; - EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue()); // This will succeed now. -``` - -## Combining Actions ## - -Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's -fine. `DoAll()` allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only -the return value of the last action in the sequence will be used. - -``` -using ::testing::DoAll; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(int n)); -}; -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1, - action_2, - ... - action_n)); -``` - -## Mocking Side Effects ## - -Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but -via side effects. For example, it may change some global state or -modify an output argument. To mock side effects, in general you can -define your own action by implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`. - -If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in -`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient: - -``` -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(bool mutate, int* value)); - ... -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _)) - .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5)); -``` - -In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 -to the `int` variable pointed to by argument #1 -(0-based). - -`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the -value you pass to it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and -alive. The implication however is that the value must have a copy -constructor and assignment operator. - -If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain -`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Return; -using ::testing::SetArgPointee; - -class MockMutator : public Mutator { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(MutateInt, bool(int* value)); -}; -... - - MockMutator mutator; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_)) - .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true))); -``` - -If the output argument is an array, use the -`SetArrayArgument(first, last)` action instead. It copies the -elements in source range `[first, last)` to the array pointed to by -the `N`-th (0-based) argument: - -``` -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::SetArrayArgument; - -class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(int* values, int num_values)); - ... -}; -... - - MockArrayMutator mutator; - int values[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; - EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5)); -``` - -This also works when the argument is an output iterator: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SeArrayArgument; - -class MockRolodex : public Rolodex { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(GetNames, void(std::back_insert_iterator >)); - ... -}; -... - - MockRolodex rolodex; - vector names; - names.push_back("George"); - names.push_back("John"); - names.push_back("Thomas"); - EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_)) - .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end())); -``` - -## Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State ## - -If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use `::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the call: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; - -... - { - InSequence seq; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(true)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush()); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty()) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(false)); - } - my_mock.FlushIfDirty(); -``` - -This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called and return `false` afterwards. - -If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable and make a mock method get its return value from that variable: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::SaveArg; -using ::testing::Return; - -ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; } -... - int previous_value = 0; - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue()) - .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value)); - EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value)); - my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue(); -``` - -Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last `UpdateValue()` call. - -## Setting the Default Value for a Return Type ## - -If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by -default it will return 0 when invoked. You only need to specify an -action if this default value doesn't work for you. - -Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want -to specify a default value for types Google Mock doesn't know -about. You can do this using the `::testing::DefaultValue` class -template: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD0(CalculateBar, Bar()); -}; -... - - Bar default_bar; - // Sets the default return value for type Bar. - DefaultValue::Set(default_bar); - - MockFoo foo; - - // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default - // return value works for us. - EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar()); - - foo.CalculateBar(); // This should return default_bar. - - // Unsets the default return value. - DefaultValue::Clear(); -``` - -Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you -tests hard to understand. We recommend you to use this feature -judiciously. For example, you may want to make sure the `Set()` and -`Clear()` calls are right next to the code that uses your mock. - -## Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method ## - -You've learned how to change the default value of a given -type. However, this may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you -have two mock methods with the same return type and you want them to -have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()` macro allows you to -customize your mock's behavior at the method level: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::AnyNumber; -using ::testing::Gt; -using ::testing::Return; -... - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .WillByDefault(Return(-1)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0)) - .WillByDefault(Return(0)); - ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0))) - .WillByDefault(Return(1)); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_)) - .Times(AnyNumber()); - - foo.Sign(5); // This should return 1. - foo.Sign(-9); // This should return -1. - foo.Sign(0); // This should return 0. -``` - -As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` -statements, the news order take precedence over the older ones. In -other words, the **last** one that matches the function arguments will -be used. This matching order allows you to set up the common behavior -in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and -specialize the mock's behavior later. - -## Using Functions/Methods/Functors as Actions ## - -If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can easily use an existing -function, method, or functor as an action: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(Sum, int(int x, int y)); - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int x)); -}; - -int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } - -class Helper { - public: - bool ComplexJob(int x); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(CalculateSum)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob)); - - foo.Sum(5, 6); // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6). - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10); -``` - -The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be -_compatible_ with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the -latter's arguments can be implicitly converted to the corresponding -arguments of the former, and the former's return type can be -implicitly converted to that of the latter. So, you can invoke -something whose type is _not_ exactly the same as the mock function, -as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh? - -## Invoking a Function/Method/Functor Without Arguments ## - -`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It -passes the mock function's arguments to the function or functor being -invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work -with. If the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the -arguments, it can simply ignore them. - -Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function -without the arguments of the mock function. `Invoke()` allows her to -do that using a wrapper function that throws away the arguments before -invoking an underlining nullary function. Needless to say, this can be -tedious and obscures the intent of the test. - -`InvokeWithoutArgs()` solves this problem. It's like `Invoke()` except -that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the -callee. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int n)); -}; - -bool Job1() { ... } -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1)); - - foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1(). -``` - -## Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function ## - -Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer or a functor -(in other words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g. - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, bool(int n, bool (*fp)(int))); -}; -``` - -and you may want to invoke this callable argument: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(...); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no -lambda (yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you -really? - -Well, Google Mock has an action to solve _exactly_ this problem: - -``` - InvokeArgument(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m) -``` - -will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, -with `arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is -a function pointer or a functor, Google Mock handles them both. - -With that, you could write: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5)); - // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the - // second argument DoThis() receives. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just -wrap it inside `ByRef()`: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(bool (*fp)(int, const Helper&))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::ByRef; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - Helper helper; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper))); - // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it, - // will be passed to the callable. -``` - -What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** -wrap the argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will _make a -copy_ of the argument, and pass a _reference to the copy_, instead of -a reference to the original value, to the callable. This is especially -handy when the argument is a temporary value: - -``` -... - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s))); -... -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::InvokeArgument; -... - - MockFoo foo; - ... - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_)) - .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi"))); - // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer - // DoThat() receives. Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are - // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes. Yet - // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values - // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action. -``` - -## Ignoring an Action's Result ## - -Sometimes you have an action that returns _something_, but you need an -action that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock -function that returns `void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in -`DoAll()` and it's not the last in the list). `IgnoreResult()` lets -you do that. For example: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Return; - -int Process(const MyData& data); -string DoSomething(); - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD1(Abc, void(const MyData& data)); - MOCK_METHOD0(Xyz, bool()); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_)) - // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process)); - // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs - // to return void. - .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Invoke(Process))); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz()) - .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(Invoke(DoSomething)), - // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns. - Return(true))); -``` - -Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already -returns `void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors. - -## Selecting an Action's Arguments ## - -Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and -you have a custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is -called. Trouble is, the custom action only wants three arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -... - MOCK_METHOD7(Foo, bool(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight)); -... - -bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) { - return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0; -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Uh, won't compile. :-( -``` - -To please the compiler God, you can to define an "adaptor" that has -the same signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the -right arguments: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y, - const map, double>& weight, - double min_weight, double max_wight) { - return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1)); // Now it works. -``` - -But isn't this awkward? - -Google Mock provides a generic _action adaptor_, so you can spend your -time minding more important business than writing your own -adaptors. Here's the syntax: - -``` - WithArgs(action) -``` - -creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at -the given indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs -it. Using `WithArgs`, our original example can be written as: - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::WithArgs; -... - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _)) - .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1))); - // No need to define your own adaptor. -``` - -For better readability, Google Mock also gives you: - - * `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes _no_ argument, and - * `WithArg(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes _one_ argument. - -As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic -sugar for `WithoutArgs(Inovke(...))`. - -Here are more tips: - - * The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be `Invoke()` -- it can be anything. - * You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g. `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`. - * You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`. - * The types of the selected arguments do _not_ have to match the signature of the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example, if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work. - -## Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions ## - -The selecting-an-action's-arguments recipe showed us one way to make a -mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit -together. The downside is that wrapping the action in -`WithArgs<...>()` can get tedious for people writing the tests. - -If you are defining a function, method, or functor to be used with -`Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an -alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as -`Unused`. This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in -case the types of the uninteresting arguments change. It could also -increase the chance the action function can be reused. For example, -given - -``` - MOCK_METHOD3(Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y)); - MOCK_METHOD3(Bar, double(int index, double x, double y)); -``` - -instead of - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; - -double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} - -double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); -``` - -you could write - -``` -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Invoke; -using ::testing::Unused; - -double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) { - return sqrt(x*x + y*y); -} -... - - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); - EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) - .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); -``` - -## Sharing Actions ## - -Just like matchers, a Google Mock action object consists of a pointer -to a ref-counted implementation object. Therefore copying actions is -also allowed and very efficient. When the last action that references -the implementation object dies, the implementation object will be -deleted. - -If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, -you may not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action -doesn't have an internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing -no matter how many times it has been called), you can assign it to an -action variable and use that variable repeatedly. For example: - -``` - Action set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5), - Return(true)); - ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ... -``` - -However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you -share the action object. Suppose you have an action factory -`IncrementCounter(init)` which creates an action that increments and -returns a counter whose initial value is `init`, using two actions -created from the same expression and using a shared action will -exihibit different behaviors. Example: - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0)); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different - // counter than Bar()'s. -``` - -versus - -``` - Action increment = IncrementCounter(0); - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat()) - .WillRepeatedly(increment); - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 1. - foo.DoThis(); // Returns 2. - foo.DoThat(); // Returns 3 - the counter is shared. -``` - -# Misc Recipes on Using Google Mock # - -## Making the Compilation Faster ## - -Believe it or not, the _vast majority_ of the time spent on compiling -a mock class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they -perform non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the -expectations). What's more, mock methods with different signatures -have different types and thus their constructors/destructors need to -be generated by the compiler separately. As a result, if you mock many -different types of methods, compiling your mock class can get really -slow. - -If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition -of your mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body -and into a `.cpp` file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock -class in N files, the compiler only needs to generate its constructor -and destructor once, resulting in a much faster compilation. - -Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a -mock class before applying this recipe: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor, - // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit - // where this mock class is used. - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` - -After the change, it would look like: - -``` -// File mock_foo.h. -... -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here. - MockFoo(); - virtual ~MockFoo(); - - MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int()); - MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str)); - ... more mock methods ... -}; -``` -and -``` -// File mock_foo.cpp. -#include "path/to/mock_foo.h" - -// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a -// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member -// variables used to implement the mock methods. -MockFoo::MockFoo() {} -MockFoo::~MockFoo() {} -``` - -## Forcing a Verification ## - -When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically -verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will -generate [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) failures -if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to -worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will -be destoyed. - -How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? -Well, it might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are -testing. Suppose there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the -mock object properly - you could end up with a passing test when -there's actually a bug. - -Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but -its implementation may not be 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want -to _force_ Google Mock to verify a mock object before it is -(hopefully) destructed. You can do this with -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`: - -``` -TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) { - using ::testing::Mock; - - MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo; - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...; - // ... other expectations ... - - // server now owns foo. - MyServer server(foo); - server.ProcessRequest(...); - - // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo, - // this will verify the expectations anyway. - Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo); -} // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here. -``` - -**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a -`bool` to indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for -yes), so you can wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if -there is no point going further when the verification has failed. - -## Using Check Points ## - -Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check -points in your test: at each check point, you verify that all existing -expectations on the mock object have been satisfied, and then you set -some new expectations on it as if it's newly created. This allows you -to work with a mock object in "phases" whose sizes are each -manageable. - -One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may -want to put the object you are testing into a certain state, with the -help from a mock object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear -all expectations on the mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can -set fresh expectations on it. - -As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` -function we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you -are using `ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and -want to clear the default actions as well, use -`Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This function does what -`Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and returns the -same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on -`mock_object` too. - -Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the -expectations in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" -function at specific places. Then you can verify that the mock -function calls do happen at the right time. For example, if you are -exercising code: - -``` -Foo(1); -Foo(2); -Foo(3); -``` - -and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke -`mock.Bar("a")`, but `Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write: - -``` -using ::testing::MockFunction; - -TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { - MyMock mock; - // Class MockFunction has exactly one mock method. It is named - // Call() and has type F. - MockFunction check; - { - InSequence s; - - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); - EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); - } - Foo(1); - check.Call("1"); - Foo(2); - check.Call("2"); - Foo(3); -} -``` - -The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before -check point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", -and nothing should happen between the two check points. The explicit -check points make it easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which -call to `Foo()`. - -## Mocking Destructors ## - -Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the -right time, e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is -called. We already know that you can specify constraints on the order -of mock function calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor -of the mock function. - -This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special -function with special syntax and special semantics, and the -`MOCK_METHOD0` macro doesn't work for it: - -``` - MOCK_METHOD0(~MockFoo, void()); // Won't compile! -``` - -The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same -effect. First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call -it in the destructor, like this: - -``` -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - // Add the following two lines to the mock class. - MOCK_METHOD0(Die, void()); - virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); } -}; -``` - -(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another -name.) Now, we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` -object dies to testing when its `Die()` method is called: - -``` - MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo; - MockBar* bar = new MockBar; - ... - { - InSequence s; - - // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B(). - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A()); - EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die()); - EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B()); - } -``` - -And that's that. - -## Using Google Mock and Threads ## - -**IMPORTANT NOTE:** What we describe in this recipe is **ONLY** true on -platforms where Google Mock is thread-safe. Currently these are only -platforms that support the pthreads library (this includes Linux and Mac). -To make it thread-safe on other platforms we only need to implement -some synchronization operations in `"gtest/internal/gtest-port.h"`. - -In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of -code in a single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and -dead locks, and makes debugging your test much easier. - -Yet many programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something -we need to pound on it from more than one thread. Google Mock works -for this purpose too. - -Remember the steps for using a mock: - - 1. Create a mock object `foo`. - 1. Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and `EXPECT_CALL()`. - 1. The code under test calls methods of `foo`. - 1. Optionally, verify and reset the mock. - 1. Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The destructor will automatically verify it. - -If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can -live happily togeter: - - * Execute your _test code_ (as opposed to the code being tested) in _one_ thread. This makes your test easy to follow. - * Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking. - * When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`. Obvious too, huh? - * #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway you want. Google Mock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - unless required by your test logic. - -If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a -mock while another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined -behavior. That's not fun, so don't do it. - -Google Mock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in -the same thread that called the mock function. For example, in - -``` - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1)) - .WillOnce(action1); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2)) - .WillOnce(action2); -``` - -if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, -Google Mock will execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread -2. - -Google Mock does _not_ impose a sequence on actions performed in -different threads (doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may -need to cooperate). This means that the execution of `action1` and -`action2` in the above example _may_ interleave. If this is a problem, -you should add proper synchronization logic to `action1` and `action2` -to make the test thread-safe. - - -Also, remember that `DefaultValue` is a global resource that -potentially affects _all_ living mock objects in your -program. Naturally, you won't want to mess with it from multiple -threads or when there still are mocks in action. - -## Controlling How Much Information Google Mock Prints ## - -When Google Mock sees something that has the potential of being an -error (e.g. a mock function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an -uninteresting call, which is allowed but perhaps you forgot to -explicitly ban the call), it prints some warning messages, including -the arguments of the function and the return value. Hopefully this -will remind you to take a look and see if there is indeed a problem. - -Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not -appreciate such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging -your tests or learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, -and wish you could observe every mock call that happens (including -argument values and the return value). Clearly, one size doesn't fit -all. - -You can control how much Google Mock tells you using the -`--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string -with three possible values: - - * `info`: Google Mock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors (most verbose). At this setting, Google Mock will also log any calls to the `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. - * `warning`: Google Mock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose). This is the default. - * `error`: Google Mock will print errors only (least verbose). - -Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your -tests like so: - -``` - ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error"; -``` - -Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable Google Mock serve you better! - -## Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls ## - -You have a test using Google Mock. It fails: Google Mock tells you -that some expectations aren't satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: -Is there a typo somewhere in the matchers? Did you mess up the order -of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under test doing something -wrong? How can you find out the cause? - -Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the -trace of all `EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? -For each call, would you like to see its actual argument values and -which `EXPECT_CALL` Google Mock thinks it matches? - -You can unlock this power by running your test with the -`--gmock_verbose=info` flag. For example, given the test program: - -``` -using testing::_; -using testing::HasSubstr; -using testing::Return; - -class MockFoo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(F, void(const string& x, const string& y)); -}; - -TEST(Foo, Bar) { - MockFoo mock; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)).WillRepeatedly(Return()); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")); - EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))); - - mock.F("a", "good"); - mock.F("a", "b"); -} -``` - -if you run it with `--gmock_verbose=info`, you will see this output: - -``` -[ RUN ] Foo.Bar - -foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked -foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked -foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked -foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))... - Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a", @0x7fff7c8dad10"good") -foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))... - Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a", @0x7fff7c8dad70"b") -foo_test.cc:16: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")))... - Expected: to be called once - Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active -[ FAILED ] Foo.Bar -``` - -Suppose the bug is that the `"c"` in the third `EXPECT_CALL` is a typo -and should actually be `"a"`. With the above message, you should see -that the actual `F("a", "good")` call is matched by the first -`EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as you thought. From that it should be -obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is written wrong. Case solved. - -## Running Tests in Emacs ## - -If you build and run your tests in Emacs, the source file locations of -Google Mock and [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) -errors will be highlighted. Just press `` on one of them and -you'll be taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x `` -to jump to the next error. - -To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your -`~/.emacs` file: - -``` -(global-set-key "\M-m" 'compile) ; m is for make -(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error) -(global-set-key [M-up] '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1))) -``` - -Then you can type `M-m` to start a build, or `M-up`/`M-down` to move -back and forth between errors. - -## Fusing Google Mock Source Files ## - -Google Mock's implementation consists of dozens of files (excluding -its own tests). Sometimes you may want them to be packaged up in -fewer files instead, such that you can easily copy them to a new -machine and start hacking there. For this we provide an experimental -Python script `fuse_gmock_files.py` in the `scripts/` directory -(starting with release 1.2.0). Assuming you have Python 2.4 or above -installed on your machine, just go to that directory and run -``` -python fuse_gmock_files.py OUTPUT_DIR -``` - -and you should see an `OUTPUT_DIR` directory being created with files -`gtest/gtest.h`, `gmock/gmock.h`, and `gmock-gtest-all.cc` in it. -These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and -Google Test). Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready -to write tests and use mocks. You can use the -[scrpts/test/Makefile](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/test/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests -against them. - -# Extending Google Mock # - -## Writing New Matchers Quickly ## - -The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers -easily. The syntax: - -``` -MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; } -``` - -will define a matcher with the given name that executes the -statements, which must return a `bool` to indicate if the match -succeeds. Inside the statements, you can refer to the value being -matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by `arg_type`. - -The description string is a `string`-typed expression that documents -what the matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message -when the match fails. It can (and should) reference the special -`bool` variable `negation`, and should evaluate to the description of -the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that of the matcher's -negation when `negation` is `true`. - -For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), -in which case Google Mock will use the sequence of words in the -matcher name as the description. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; } -``` -allows you to write -``` - // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7. - EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -or, -``` -using ::testing::Not; -... - EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7()); - EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7())); -``` -If the above assertions fail, they will print something like: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 -... - Value of: some_other_expression - Expected: not (is divisible by 7) - Actual: 21 -``` -where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible -by 7)"` are automatically calculated from the matcher name -`IsDivisibleBy7`. - -As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially -those for the negation) may not be so great. You can always override -them with a string expression of your own: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + - " divisible by 7") { - return (arg % 7) == 0; -} -``` - -Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument -named `result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a -better definition of `IsDivisibleBy7` is: -``` -MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { - if ((arg % 7) == 0) - return true; - - *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7); - return false; -} -``` - -With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message: -``` - Value of: some_expression - Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6) -``` - -You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print _any additional information_ -that can help a user understand the match result. Note that it should -explain why the match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's -obvious) - this is useful when the matcher is used inside -`Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value itself, as -Google Mock already prints it for you. - -**Notes:** - - 1. The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a `bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an `int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will be `unsigned long`; and so on. - 1. Google Mock doesn't guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be invoked. Therefore the matcher logic must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). This requirement must be satisfied no matter how you define the matcher (e.g. using one of the methods described in the following recipes). In particular, a matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the mock object and Google Mock. - -## Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you -can use the macro: -``` -MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } -``` -where the description string can be either `""` or a string expression -that references `negation` and `param_name`. - -For example: -``` -MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -``` -will allow you to write: -``` - EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -``` -which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10): -``` - Value of: Blah("a") - Expected: has absolute value 10 - Actual: -9 -``` - -Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -printed, making the message human-friendly. - -In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to -reference the type of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the -body of `MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write -`value_type` to refer to the type of `value`. - -Google Mock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to -`MATCHER_P10` to support multi-parameter matchers: -``` -MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; } -``` - -Please note that the custom description string is for a particular -**instance** of the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to -actual values. Therefore usually you'll want the parameter values to -be part of the description. Google Mock lets you do that by -referencing the matcher parameters in the description string -expression. - -For example, -``` - using ::testing::PrintToString; - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, - std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " in range [" + - PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { - return low <= arg && arg <= hi; - } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the message: -``` - Expected: is in range [4, 6] -``` - -If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will -contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -``` - MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } - ... - EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -``` -would generate a failure that contains the text: -``` - Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -``` - -For the purpose of typing, you can view -``` -MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } -``` -as shorthand for -``` -template -FooMatcherPk -Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -``` - -When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of -the parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with -the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -explicitly instantiating the template, as in `Foo(5, false)`. -As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -`arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -is used. - -You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a -variable of type `FooMatcherPk`. This can be -useful when composing matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter -or have only one parameter have special types: you can assign `Foo()` -to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and assign `Foo(p)` to a -`FooMatcherP`-typed variable. - -While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -address. - -You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -``` -MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... } -MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... } -``` - -While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining -a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -`MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see -the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher a -lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more -control on the types of the value being matched and the matcher -parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages -that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers -based on parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of -parameters). - -## Writing New Monomorphic Matchers ## - -A matcher of argument type `T` implements -`::testing::MatcherInterface` and does two things: it tests whether a -value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can describe what kind of -values it matches. The latter ability is used for generating readable -error messages when expectations are violated. - -The interface looks like this: - -``` -class MatchResultListener { - public: - ... - // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream - // is NULL. - template - MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x); - - // Returns the underlying ostream. - ::std::ostream* stream(); -}; - -template -class MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual ~MatcherInterface(); - - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener'. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const; -}; -``` - -If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for -example, you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` -describes itself, or you may want your matcher to be polymorphic as -`Eq(value)` is), you can define a matcher to do whatever you want in -two steps: first implement the matcher interface, and then define a -factory function to create a matcher instance. The second step is not -strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher nicer. - -For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is -divisible by 7 and then use it like this: -``` -using ::testing::MakeMatcher; -using ::testing::Matcher; -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; - -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return (n % 7) == 0; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is divisible by 7"; - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "is not divisible by 7"; - } -}; - -inline Matcher DivisibleBy7() { - return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7())); -``` - -You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional -information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`: - -``` -class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const int remainder = n % 7; - if (remainder != 0) { - *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder; - } - return remainder == 0; - } - ... -}; -``` - -Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may general a message like this: -``` -Value of: x -Expected: is divisible by 7 - Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2) -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Matchers ## - -You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous -recipe. Just one problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only -works for one particular type of arguments. If you want a -_polymorphic_ matcher that works with arguments of several types (for -instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a `value` as long as `value` == -`x` compiles -- `value` and `x` don't have to share the same type), -you can learn the trick from `"gmock/gmock-matchers.h"` but it's a bit -involved. - -Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher -easily with the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can -define `NotNull()` as an example: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -using ::testing::NotNull; -using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher; - -class NotNullMatcher { - public: - // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class - // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and - // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following. - - // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so - // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument. - // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or - // a method template, or even overload it. - template - bool MatchAndExplain(T* p, - MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const { - return p != NULL; - } - - // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher. - void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; } - - // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher. - void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; } -}; - -// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class -// to MakePolymorphicMatcher(). Note the return type. -inline PolymorphicMatcher NotNull() { - return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher()); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer. -``` - -**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from -`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need -to be virtual. - -Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by -streaming additional information to the `listener` argument in -`MatchAndExplain()`. - -## Writing New Cardinalities ## - -A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell Google Mock how many times -you expect a call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, -you can say `AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`. - -If the built-in set of cardinalities doesn't suit you, you are free to -define your own by implementing the following interface (in namespace -`testing`): - -``` -class CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual ~CardinalityInterface(); - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - - // Describes self to an ostream. - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; -}; -``` - -For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, -you can write - -``` -using ::testing::Cardinality; -using ::testing::CardinalityInterface; -using ::testing::MakeCardinality; - -class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface { - public: - virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return (call_count % 2) == 0; - } - - virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { - return false; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "called even number of times"; - } -}; - -Cardinality EvenNumber() { - return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3)) - .Times(EvenNumber()); -``` - -## Writing New Actions Quickly ## - -If the built-in actions don't work for you, and you find it -inconvenient to use `Invoke()`, you can use a macro from the `ACTION*` -family to quickly define a new action that can be used in your code as -if it's a built-in action. - -By writing -``` -ACTION(name) { statements; } -``` -in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will -define an action with the given name that executes the statements. -The value returned by `statements` will be used as the return value of -the action. Inside the statements, you can refer to the K-th -(0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`. For example: -``` -ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); } -``` -allows you to write -``` -... WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -``` - -Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -arguments. Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: -you'll get a compiler error if `*arg1` doesn't support the `++` -operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock -function's return type. - -Another example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - (*arg2)(5); - Blah(); - *arg1 = 0; - return arg0; -} -``` -defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) -with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument -#1 to 0, and returns argument #0. - -For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following -pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`: - -| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function | -|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| -| `args` | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple | -| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function | -| `function_type` | The type of the mock function | - -For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function: -``` -int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr); -``` -we have: -| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** | -|:-----------------------|:----------------| -| `arg0` | the value of `flag` | -| `arg0_type` | the type `bool` | -| `arg1` | the value of `ptr` | -| `arg1_type` | the type `int*` | -| `args` | the tuple `(flag, ptr)` | -| `args_type` | the type `std::tr1::tuple` | -| `return_type` | the type `int` | -| `function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)` | - -## Writing New Parameterized Actions Quickly ## - -Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that -we have another macro -``` -ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; } -``` - -For example, -``` -ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -``` -will allow you to write -``` -// Returns argument #0 + 5. -... WillOnce(Add(5)); -``` - -For convenience, we use the term _arguments_ for the values used to -invoke the mock function, and the term _parameters_ for the values -used to instantiate an action. - -Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. -Suppose the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the -Google-Mock-defined symbol `param_type` to refer to the type of the -parameter as inferred by the compiler. For example, in the body of -`ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for the type of `n`. - -Google Mock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support -multi-parameter actions. For example, -``` -ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) { - double dx = arg0 - x; - double dy = arg1 - y; - return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy); -} -``` -lets you write -``` -... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5)); -``` - -You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the -number of parameters is 0. - -You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters: -``` -ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -``` - -## Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION ## - -For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask -you to provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action -parameters. Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us. - -Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. -There are several tricks to do that. For example: -``` -ACTION(Foo) { - // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int. - int n = arg0; - ... use n instead of arg0 here ... -} - -ACTION_P(Bar, param) { - // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*. - ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq(); - - // Makes sure param can be converted to bool. - bool flag = param; -} -``` -where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in Google Test -that verifies two types are the same. - -## Writing New Action Templates Quickly ## - -Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that -cannot be inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` -supports that and can be viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and -`ACTION_P*()`. - -The syntax: -``` -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, - HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), - AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -``` - -defines an action template that takes _m_ explicit template parameters -and _n_ value parameters, where _m_ is between 1 and 10, and _n_ is -between 0 and 10. `name_i` is the name of the i-th template -parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a `typename`, an -integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the i-th value -parameter. - -Example: -``` -// DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// function to type T and copies it to *output. -ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, - // Note the comma between int and k: - HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { - *output = T(std::tr1::get(args)); -} -``` - -To create an instance of an action template, write: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where the `t`s are the template arguments and the -`v`s are the value arguments. The value argument -types are inferred by the compiler. For example: -``` -using ::testing::_; -... - int n; - EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) - .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -``` - -If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -provide additional template arguments: -``` - ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -``` -where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`. - -`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the -number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following is -unclear: - -``` - OverloadedAction(x); -``` - -Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to -the type of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler -is asked to infer the type of `x`? - -## Using the ACTION Object's Type ## - -If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll -need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define -the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple: -| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** | -|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------| -| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` | -| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar(int_value)` | `FooActionP` | -| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2` | -| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2` | -| ... | ... | ... | - -Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, -`ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of value -parameters, or the action definitions cannot be overloaded on the -number of them. - -## Writing New Monomorphic Actions ## - -While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are -inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous -recipes, they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock -function arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads -to unoptimized compiler error messages that can baffle unfamiliar -users. They also don't allow overloading actions based on parameter -types without jumping through some hoops. - -An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement -`::testing::ActionInterface`, where `F` is the type of the mock -function in which the action will be used. For example: - -``` -template class ActionInterface { - public: - virtual ~ActionInterface(); - - // Performs the action. Result is the return type of function type - // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F. - // - // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would - // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be tr1::tuple. - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0; -}; - -using ::testing::_; -using ::testing::Action; -using ::testing::ActionInterface; -using ::testing::MakeAction; - -typedef int IncrementMethod(int*); - -class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface { - public: - virtual int Perform(const tr1::tuple& args) { - int* p = tr1::get<0>(args); // Grabs the first argument. - return *p++; - } -}; - -Action IncrementArgument() { - return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction); -} -... - - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_)) - .WillOnce(IncrementArgument()); - - int n = 5; - foo.Baz(&n); // Should return 5 and change n to 6. -``` - -## Writing New Polymorphic Actions ## - -The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is -all good, except that you need to know the type of the function in -which the action will be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For -example, if you want to use the action in functions with _different_ -types (e.g. like `Return()` and `SetArgPointee()`). - -If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say -it's _polymorphic_. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template -makes it easy to define such an action: - -``` -namespace testing { - -template -PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl); - -} // namespace testing -``` - -As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument -in the mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an -implementation class: - -``` -class ReturnSecondArgumentAction { - public: - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use tr1::get(args). - return tr1::get<1>(args); - } -}; -``` - -This implementation class does _not_ need to inherit from any -particular class. What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` -method template. This method template takes the mock function's -arguments as a tuple in a **single** argument, and returns the result of -the action. It can be either `const` or not, but must be invokable -with exactly one template argument, which is the result type. In other -words, you must be able to call `Perform(args)` where `R` is the -mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple. - -Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the -implementation class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be -convenient to have a wrapper for this: - -``` -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction; -using ::testing::PolymorphicAction; - -PolymorphicAction ReturnSecondArgument() { - return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction()); -} -``` - -Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the -built-in ones: - -``` -using ::testing::_; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - public: - MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, int(bool flag, int n)); - MOCK_METHOD3(DoThat, string(int x, const char* str1, const char* str2)); -}; -... - - MockFoo foo; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _, _)) - .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument()); - ... - foo.DoThis(true, 5); // Will return 5. - foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye"); // Will return "Hi". -``` - -## Teaching Google Mock How to Print Your Values ## - -When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, Google Mock prints the -argument values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion -macros like `EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in -question when the assertion fails. Google Mock and Google Test do this using -Google Test's user-extensible value printer. - -This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL -containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other -types, it prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the -user can figure it out. -[Google Test's advanced guide](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Teaching_Google_Test_How_to_Print_Your_Values) -explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at -printing your particular type than to dump the bytes. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md deleted file mode 100644 index d9181f2..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12 +0,0 @@ -This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk version)** -- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.** - - * [ForDummies](V1_7_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock. - * [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference. - * [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock. - * [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_7_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list. - -To contribute code to Google Mock, read: - - * [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch. - * [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md deleted file mode 100644 index 2ed4300..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,439 +0,0 @@ - - -(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error).) - -# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? # -When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc). - -**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community: - - * **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake. - * **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. - -If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks. - -**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java. - -Using Google Mock involves three basic steps: - - 1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class; - 1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax; - 1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises. - -# Why Google Mock? # -While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_: - - * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. - * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. - * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next. - -In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. - -Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you: - - * You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid". - * Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database). - * Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network). - * You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one. - * You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best. - * You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks. - -We encourage you to use Google Mock as: - - * a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs! - * a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators. - -# Getting Started # -Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just #include `"gtest/gtest.h"` and `"gmock/gmock.h"`, and you are ready to go. - -# A Case for Mock Turtles # -Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface: - -``` -class Turtle { - ... - virtual ~Turtle() {} - virtual void PenUp() = 0; - virtual void PenDown() = 0; - virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0; - virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0; - virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0; - virtual int GetX() const = 0; - virtual int GetY() const = 0; -}; -``` - -(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.) - -You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle. - -Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_. - -# Writing the Mock Class # -If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.) - -## How to Define It ## -Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow: - - 1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`. - 1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has. - 1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so. - 1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_). - 1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. - -After the process, you should have something like: - -``` -#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in Google Mock. -class MockTurtle : public Turtle { - public: - ... - MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void()); - MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void()); - MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance)); - MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees)); - MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y)); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int()); - MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int()); -}; -``` - -You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins. - -**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the -`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line -tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it, -and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the -complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but -it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README). - -## Where to Put It ## -When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?) - -So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed. - -Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does. - -# Using Mocks in Tests # -Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is: - - 1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.). - 1. Create some mock objects. - 1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.). - 1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately. - 1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied. - -Here's an example: - -``` -#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h" -#include "gmock/gmock.h" -#include "gtest/gtest.h" -using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1 - -TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) { - MockTurtle turtle; // #2 - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3 - .Times(AtLeast(1)); - - Painter painter(&turtle); // #4 - - EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); -} // #5 - -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock - // (and Google Test) before running the tests. - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); -} -``` - -As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this: - -``` -path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure -Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation: -Actually: never called; -Expected: called at least once. -``` - -**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation. - -**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap. - -**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions. - -This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier. - -Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks. - -## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ## -If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or -[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to: -``` -int main(int argc, char** argv) { - // The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure, - // which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure. - ::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true; - ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); - ... whatever your testing framework requires ... -} -``` - -This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception -from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this -sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to -notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure. - -A better solution is to use Google Test's -[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events) -to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to -implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it -should be straightforward. - -If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with -Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is -technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you -cannot use Google Test, please let us know. - -# Setting Expectations # -The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right." - -## General Syntax ## -In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is: - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers)) - .Times(cardinality) - .WillOnce(action) - .WillRepeatedly(action); -``` - -The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.) - -The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections. - -This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .Times(5) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(150)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(200)); -``` - -says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL). - -**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier. - -## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ## -When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example: - -``` -// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); -``` - -Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes": - -``` -using ::testing::_; -... -// Expects the turtle to move forward. -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); -``` - -`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. - -A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher: - -``` -using ::testing::Ge;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); -``` - -This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units. - -## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ## -The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly. - -An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called. - -We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md). - -The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember: - - * If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`. - * If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`. - -**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times? - -## Actions: What Should It Do? ## -Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock. - -First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used. - -Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillOnce(Return(300)); -``` - -This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) - .WillOnce(Return(100)) - .WillOnce(Return(200)) - .WillRepeatedly(Return(300)); -``` - -says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on. - -Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.). - -What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CheatSheet#Actions). - -**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want: - -``` -int n = 100; -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) -.Times(4) -.WillRepeatedly(Return(n++)); -``` - -Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md). - -Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? - -``` -using ::testing::Return;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) -.Times(4) -.WillOnce(Return(100)); -``` - -Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions. - -## Using Multiple Expectations ## -So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects. - -By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation. - -**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it. - -## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ## -By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified. - -Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence;... -TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { - ... - { - InSequence dummy; - - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100)); - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp()); - } - Foo(); -} -``` - -By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant. - -In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. - -(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).) - -## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ## -Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? - -After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): - -``` -using ::testing::_;... -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 - .Times(AnyNumber()); -EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 - .Times(2); -``` - -Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above. - -This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.). - -Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say? - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)); -} -``` - -If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful! - -One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated: - -``` -using ::testing::Return; -... -for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence: - -``` -using ::testing::InSequence; -using ::testing::Return; -... -{ - InSequence s; - - for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { - EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) - .WillOnce(Return(10*i)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - } -} -``` - -By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call). - -## Uninteresting Calls ## -A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called. - -In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure. - -# What Now? # -Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned. - -Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md deleted file mode 100644 index fa21233..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,628 +0,0 @@ - - -Please send your questions to the -[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion -group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have -tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first. - -## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? ## - -In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods). - -## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ## - -After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how -to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative -messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what -we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it. - -Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers -by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, -your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the -`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected. - -Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's -in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than -later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing -matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do: - -If you wrote your matcher like this: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -you'll need to change it to: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` -(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second -argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.) - -If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher -message: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - - virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) const { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - } - ... -}; -``` - -you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into -`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where -the `::std::ostream` was used: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MatcherInterface; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface { - public: - ... - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo(); - return value.GetFoo() > 5; - } - ... -}; -``` - -If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and -add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do -for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`): -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better -failure messages: -``` -// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest -// Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool Matches(MyType value) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher, - MyType value, - ::std::ostream* os) { - // Prints some helpful information to os to help - // a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match). - *os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); -} -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to -`MatchAndExplain()`: -``` -// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock. -using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher; -using ::testing::MatchResultListener; -... -class MyGreatMatcher { - public: - ... - bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - // Returns true if value matches. - *listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar(); - return value.GetBar() < 42; - } - ... -}; -... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ... -``` - -For more information, you can read these -[two](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers) -[recipes](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers) -from the cookbook. As always, you -are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you -need any help. - -## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ## - -Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy -to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice. -[Here](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework) is how. - -## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ## - -If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you, -try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to -scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the -problems (we call them diseases) your code has. - -To "install", run command: -``` -alias gmd='/scripts/gmock_doctor.py' -``` - -To use it, do: -``` - 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -For example: -``` -make my_test 2>&1 | gmd -``` - -Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it. - -## Can I mock a variadic function? ## - -You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis -(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock. - -The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to -know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what -the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows -the protocol, and we cannot look into his head. - -Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock -object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One -way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function. - -Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. -They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have -constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in -C++ as much as possible. - -## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ## - -If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0; -}; - -class MockFoo : public Foo { - ... - MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i)); -}; -``` -You may get the following warning: -``` -warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier -``` - -This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for -example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning: -``` -warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers -``` - -In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the -`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above -is equivalent to: -``` -class Foo { - ... - virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference. -}; -``` - -In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_ -it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them -up. - -Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method -_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. -That should workaround the VC bug. - -Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here. -If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring -the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For -example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent: -``` -void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const. -void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is. -``` - -## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ## - -We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ -uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest -to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks. - -## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ## - -You might want to run your test with -`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace -of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace, -you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met. - -## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ## - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .Times(0); -``` - -## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ## - -When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information -(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and -etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google -Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant -expectations. - -Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, -and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are -however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_. -The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information. - -## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ## - -Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a -virtual destructor? - -Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is -virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following -code: - -``` -class Base { - public: - // Not virtual, but should be. - ~Base() { ... } - ... -}; - -class Derived : public Base { - public: - ... - private: - std::string value_; -}; - -... - Base* p = new Derived; - ... - delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not - // - value_ is leaked. -``` - -By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly -called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker -will be happy. - -## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ## - -When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the -// reverse order. This sucks big time!!! -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's -intent. - -By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular -order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be -explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's -easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it -harder to do so. - -There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either -put the expectations in sequence: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations -// in their natural order. -{ - InSequence s; - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); - EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -} -``` - -or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation: - -``` -// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return -// 2 the second time. -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()) - .WillOnce(Return(1)) - .WillOnce(Return(2)) - .RetiresOnSaturation(); -``` - -Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the -expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this -allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early -(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase) -and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock -searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be -possible. - -## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ## - -When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the -latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the -warning. - -Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's -constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from -test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which -are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up -part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's -no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If -we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs -may creep in unnoticed. - -If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write - -``` -EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillRepeatedly(...); -``` - -instead of - -``` -ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_)) - .WillByDefault(...); -``` - -This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be -printed. - -Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag. -If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less -verbose level. - -## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ## - -If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not -supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own -actions using -[MakeAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions) or -[MakePolymorphicAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions), -or you can write a stub function and invoke it using -[Invoke()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors). - -## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ## - -What?! I think it's beautiful. :-) - -While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some -extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it -has. - -Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument: -``` -virtual int GetSize(const map& m); -``` - -Using the proposed syntax, it would be: -``` -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map& m); -``` - -Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that -`const map& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work -around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but -that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this -problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair -of parentheses: -``` -// This compiles fine. -MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map& m)); -``` - -You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected -comma, but that's much rarer. - -Other advantages include: - 1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax. - 1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it. - 1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`! - -## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ## - -You can, but you need to make some changes. - -In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, -it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less -flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better -off defining a small interface and call the function through that -interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work -initially, but usually pays for itself quickly. - -This Google Testing Blog -[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) -says it excellently. Check it out. - -## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ## - -I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-) - -With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be -tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and -sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in -the latter case? - -When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and -assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an -expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing". - -Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: -instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects -verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon -as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the -error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to -do than state-based testing. - -If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to -simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. -Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for -mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think -that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your -problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-) - -## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ## - -By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. - -What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any -expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not -interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called -any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say -it's not OK to call the function! - -What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but -forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While -one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and -prints you a note. - -So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any -uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make -your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments -when an uninteresting call is encountered. - -## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ## - -Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient -for your circumstance. - -Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it -using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in -functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining -`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is -easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of -functions the action can be used in, and implementing -`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of -`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example. - -## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ## - -You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return -when the mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the -side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You -need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`. - -See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects) for more details and an example. - - -## My question is not in your FAQ! ## - -If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are -some other resources you can use: - - 1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list), - 1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics), - 1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.). - -Please note that creating an issue in the -[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_ -a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a -very small number of people. - -When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the -following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's -not enough information in your question): - - * the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version), - * your operating system, - * the name and version of your compiler, - * the complete command line flags you give to your compiler, - * the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation), - * the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h index b3f654a..f2393bd 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h @@ -26,28 +26,129 @@ // THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT // (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE // OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) + // Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. // -// This file implements some commonly used actions. +// The ACTION* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to +// define custom actions easily. The syntax: +// +// ACTION(name) { statements; } +// +// will define an action with the given name that executes the +// statements. The value returned by the statements will be used as +// the return value of the action. Inside the statements, you can +// refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function by +// 'argK', and refer to its type by 'argK_type'. For example: +// +// ACTION(IncrementArg1) { +// arg1_type temp = arg1; +// return ++(*temp); +// } +// +// allows you to write +// +// ...WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); +// +// You can also refer to the entire argument tuple and its type by +// 'args' and 'args_type', and refer to the mock function type and its +// return type by 'function_type' and 'return_type'. +// +// Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function +// arguments. However rest assured that your code is still type-safe: +// you'll get a compiler error if *arg1 doesn't support the ++ +// operator, or if the type of ++(*arg1) isn't compatible with the +// mock function's return type, for example. +// +// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the action. For that you can use +// another macro: +// +// ACTION_P(name, param_name) { statements; } +// +// For example: +// +// ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } +// +// will allow you to write: +// +// ...WillOnce(Add(5)); +// +// Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter +// either. If you need to reference the type of a parameter named +// 'foo', you can write 'foo_type'. For example, in the body of +// ACTION_P(Add, n) above, you can write 'n_type' to refer to the type +// of 'n'. +// +// We also provide ACTION_P2, ACTION_P3, ..., up to ACTION_P10 to support +// multi-parameter actions. +// +// For the purpose of typing, you can view +// +// ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { ... } +// +// as shorthand for +// +// template +// FooActionPk Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } +// +// In particular, you can provide the template type arguments +// explicitly when invoking Foo(), as in Foo(5, false); +// although usually you can rely on the compiler to infer the types +// for you automatically. You can assign the result of expression +// Foo(p1, ..., pk) to a variable of type FooActionPk. This can be useful when composing actions. +// +// You can also overload actions with different numbers of parameters: +// +// ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } +// ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } +// +// While it's tempting to always use the ACTION* macros when defining +// a new action, you should also consider implementing ActionInterface +// or using MakePolymorphicAction() instead, especially if you need to +// use the action a lot. While these approaches require more work, +// they give you more control on the types of the mock function +// arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads to +// better compiler error messages that pay off in the long run. They +// also allow overloading actions based on parameter types (as opposed +// to just based on the number of parameters). +// +// CAVEAT: +// +// ACTION*() can only be used in a namespace scope as templates cannot be +// declared inside of a local class. +// Users can, however, define any local functors (e.g. a lambda) that +// can be used as actions. +// +// MORE INFORMATION: +// +// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'ACTION' on +// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/docs/gmock_cook_book.md -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ +// GOOGLETEST_CM0002 DO NOT DELETE + +#ifndef GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ +#define GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ #ifndef _WIN32_WCE # include #endif #include +#include +#include #include +#include +#include +#include #include "gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h" #include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" +#include "gmock/internal/gmock-pp.h" -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_TYPE_TRAITS_ // Defined by gtest-port.h via gmock-port.h. -#include +#ifdef _MSC_VER +# pragma warning(push) +# pragma warning(disable:4100) #endif namespace testing { @@ -63,9 +164,6 @@ namespace testing { namespace internal { -template -class ActionAdaptor; - // BuiltInDefaultValueGetter::Get() returns a // default-constructed T value. BuiltInDefaultValueGetter::Get() crashes with an error. @@ -96,8 +194,8 @@ struct BuiltInDefaultValueGetter { template class BuiltInDefaultValue { public: -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_TYPE_TRAITS_ - // This function returns true iff type T has a built-in default value. + // This function returns true if and only if type T has a built-in default + // value. static bool Exists() { return ::std::is_default_constructible::value; } @@ -106,18 +204,6 @@ class BuiltInDefaultValue { return BuiltInDefaultValueGetter< T, ::std::is_default_constructible::value>::Get(); } - -#else // GTEST_HAS_STD_TYPE_TRAITS_ - // This function returns true iff type T has a built-in default value. - static bool Exists() { - return false; - } - - static T Get() { - return BuiltInDefaultValueGetter::Get(); - } - -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_TYPE_TRAITS_ }; // This partial specialization says that we use the same built-in @@ -135,7 +221,7 @@ template class BuiltInDefaultValue { public: static bool Exists() { return true; } - static T* Get() { return NULL; } + static T* Get() { return nullptr; } }; // The following specializations define the default values for @@ -149,9 +235,6 @@ class BuiltInDefaultValue { } GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(void, ); // NOLINT -#if GTEST_HAS_GLOBAL_STRING -GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(::string, ""); -#endif // GTEST_HAS_GLOBAL_STRING GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(::std::string, ""); GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(bool, false); GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(unsigned char, '\0'); @@ -174,13 +257,17 @@ GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(unsigned int, 0U); GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(signed int, 0); GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(unsigned long, 0UL); // NOLINT GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(signed long, 0L); // NOLINT -GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(UInt64, 0); -GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(Int64, 0); +GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(unsigned long long, 0); // NOLINT +GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(signed long long, 0); // NOLINT GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(float, 0); GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(double, 0); #undef GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_ +// Simple two-arg form of std::disjunction. +template +using disjunction = typename ::std::conditional::type; + } // namespace internal // When an unexpected function call is encountered, Google Mock will @@ -218,11 +305,11 @@ class DefaultValue { // Unsets the default value for type T. static void Clear() { delete producer_; - producer_ = NULL; + producer_ = nullptr; } - // Returns true iff the user has set the default value for type T. - static bool IsSet() { return producer_ != NULL; } + // Returns true if and only if the user has set the default value for type T. + static bool IsSet() { return producer_ != nullptr; } // Returns true if T has a default return value set by the user or there // exists a built-in default value. @@ -234,8 +321,8 @@ class DefaultValue { // otherwise returns the built-in default value. Requires that Exists() // is true, which ensures that the return value is well-defined. static T Get() { - return producer_ == NULL ? - internal::BuiltInDefaultValue::Get() : producer_->Produce(); + return producer_ == nullptr ? internal::BuiltInDefaultValue::Get() + : producer_->Produce(); } private: @@ -248,7 +335,7 @@ class DefaultValue { class FixedValueProducer : public ValueProducer { public: explicit FixedValueProducer(T value) : value_(value) {} - virtual T Produce() { return value_; } + T Produce() override { return value_; } private: const T value_; @@ -259,7 +346,7 @@ class DefaultValue { public: explicit FactoryValueProducer(FactoryFunction factory) : factory_(factory) {} - virtual T Produce() { return factory_(); } + T Produce() override { return factory_(); } private: const FactoryFunction factory_; @@ -280,12 +367,10 @@ class DefaultValue { } // Unsets the default value for type T&. - static void Clear() { - address_ = NULL; - } + static void Clear() { address_ = nullptr; } - // Returns true iff the user has set the default value for type T&. - static bool IsSet() { return address_ != NULL; } + // Returns true if and only if the user has set the default value for type T&. + static bool IsSet() { return address_ != nullptr; } // Returns true if T has a default return value set by the user or there // exists a built-in default value. @@ -297,8 +382,8 @@ class DefaultValue { // otherwise returns the built-in default value if there is one; // otherwise aborts the process. static T& Get() { - return address_ == NULL ? - internal::BuiltInDefaultValue::Get() : *address_; + return address_ == nullptr ? internal::BuiltInDefaultValue::Get() + : *address_; } private: @@ -316,11 +401,11 @@ class DefaultValue { // Points to the user-set default value for type T. template -typename DefaultValue::ValueProducer* DefaultValue::producer_ = NULL; +typename DefaultValue::ValueProducer* DefaultValue::producer_ = nullptr; // Points to the user-set default value for type T&. template -T* DefaultValue::address_ = NULL; +T* DefaultValue::address_ = nullptr; // Implement this interface to define an action for function type F. template @@ -345,38 +430,60 @@ class ActionInterface { // An Action is a copyable and IMMUTABLE (except by assignment) // object that represents an action to be taken when a mock function // of type F is called. The implementation of Action is just a -// linked_ptr to const ActionInterface, so copying is fairly cheap. -// Don't inherit from Action! -// +// std::shared_ptr to const ActionInterface. Don't inherit from Action! // You can view an object implementing ActionInterface as a // concrete action (including its current state), and an Action // object as a handle to it. template class Action { + // Adapter class to allow constructing Action from a legacy ActionInterface. + // New code should create Actions from functors instead. + struct ActionAdapter { + // Adapter must be copyable to satisfy std::function requirements. + ::std::shared_ptr> impl_; + + template + typename internal::Function::Result operator()(Args&&... args) { + return impl_->Perform( + ::std::forward_as_tuple(::std::forward(args)...)); + } + }; + + template + using IsCompatibleFunctor = std::is_constructible, G>; + public: typedef typename internal::Function::Result Result; typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; // Constructs a null Action. Needed for storing Action objects in // STL containers. - Action() : impl_(NULL) {} + Action() {} - // Constructs an Action from its implementation. A NULL impl is - // used to represent the "do-default" action. - explicit Action(ActionInterface* impl) : impl_(impl) {} + // Construct an Action from a specified callable. + // This cannot take std::function directly, because then Action would not be + // directly constructible from lambda (it would require two conversions). + template < + typename G, + typename = typename std::enable_if, std::is_constructible, + G>>::value>::type> + Action(G&& fun) { // NOLINT + Init(::std::forward(fun), IsCompatibleFunctor()); + } - // Copy constructor. - Action(const Action& action) : impl_(action.impl_) {} + // Constructs an Action from its implementation. + explicit Action(ActionInterface* impl) + : fun_(ActionAdapter{::std::shared_ptr>(impl)}) {} // This constructor allows us to turn an Action object into an // Action, as long as F's arguments can be implicitly converted - // to Func's and Func's return type can be implicitly converted to - // F's. + // to Func's and Func's return type can be implicitly converted to F's. template - explicit Action(const Action& action); + explicit Action(const Action& action) : fun_(action.fun_) {} - // Returns true iff this is the DoDefault() action. - bool IsDoDefault() const { return impl_.get() == NULL; } + // Returns true if and only if this is the DoDefault() action. + bool IsDoDefault() const { return fun_ == nullptr; } // Performs the action. Note that this method is const even though // the corresponding method in ActionInterface is not. The reason @@ -384,22 +491,39 @@ class Action { // another concrete action, not that the concrete action it binds to // cannot change state. (Think of the difference between a const // pointer and a pointer to const.) - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - internal::Assert( - !IsDoDefault(), __FILE__, __LINE__, - "You are using DoDefault() inside a composite action like " - "DoAll() or WithArgs(). This is not supported for technical " - "reasons. Please instead spell out the default action, or " - "assign the default action to an Action variable and use " - "the variable in various places."); - return impl_->Perform(args); + Result Perform(ArgumentTuple args) const { + if (IsDoDefault()) { + internal::IllegalDoDefault(__FILE__, __LINE__); + } + return internal::Apply(fun_, ::std::move(args)); } private: - template - friend class internal::ActionAdaptor; + template + friend class Action; - internal::linked_ptr > impl_; + template + void Init(G&& g, ::std::true_type) { + fun_ = ::std::forward(g); + } + + template + void Init(G&& g, ::std::false_type) { + fun_ = IgnoreArgs::type>{::std::forward(g)}; + } + + template + struct IgnoreArgs { + template + Result operator()(const Args&...) const { + return function_impl(); + } + + FunctionImpl function_impl; + }; + + // fun_ is an empty function if and only if this is the DoDefault() action. + ::std::function fun_; }; // The PolymorphicAction class template makes it easy to implement a @@ -414,7 +538,7 @@ class Action { // template // Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { // // Processes the arguments and returns a result, using -// // tr1::get(args) to get the N-th (0-based) argument in the tuple. +// // std::get(args) to get the N-th (0-based) argument in the tuple. // } // ... // }; @@ -442,19 +566,15 @@ class PolymorphicAction { explicit MonomorphicImpl(const Impl& impl) : impl_(impl) {} - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) override { return impl_.template Perform(args); } private: Impl impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(MonomorphicImpl); }; Impl impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(PolymorphicAction); }; // Creates an Action from its implementation and returns it. The @@ -478,31 +598,11 @@ inline PolymorphicAction MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl) { namespace internal { -// Allows an Action object to pose as an Action, as long as F2 -// and F1 are compatible. -template -class ActionAdaptor : public ActionInterface { - public: - typedef typename internal::Function::Result Result; - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - explicit ActionAdaptor(const Action& from) : impl_(from.impl_) {} - - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return impl_->Perform(args); - } - - private: - const internal::linked_ptr > impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ActionAdaptor); -}; - // Helper struct to specialize ReturnAction to execute a move instead of a copy // on return. Useful for move-only types, but could be used on any type. template struct ByMoveWrapper { - explicit ByMoveWrapper(T value) : payload(internal::move(value)) {} + explicit ByMoveWrapper(T value) : payload(std::move(value)) {} T payload; }; @@ -530,18 +630,21 @@ struct ByMoveWrapper { // statement, and conversion of the result of Return to Action is a // good place for that. // +// The real life example of the above scenario happens when an invocation +// of gtl::Container() is passed into Return. +// template class ReturnAction { public: // Constructs a ReturnAction object from the value to be returned. // 'value' is passed by value instead of by const reference in order // to allow Return("string literal") to compile. - explicit ReturnAction(R value) : value_(new R(internal::move(value))) {} + explicit ReturnAction(R value) : value_(new R(std::move(value))) {} // This template type conversion operator allows Return(x) to be // used in ANY function that returns x's type. template - operator Action() const { + operator Action() const { // NOLINT // Assert statement belongs here because this is the best place to verify // conditions on F. It produces the clearest error messages // in most compilers. @@ -552,8 +655,10 @@ class ReturnAction { // in the Impl class. But both definitions must be the same. typedef typename Function::Result Result; GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_( - !is_reference::value, + !std::is_reference::value, use_ReturnRef_instead_of_Return_to_return_a_reference); + static_assert(!std::is_void::value, + "Can't use Return() on an action expected to return `void`."); return Action(new Impl(value_)); } @@ -572,14 +677,14 @@ class ReturnAction { // Result to call. ImplicitCast_ forces the compiler to convert R to // Result without considering explicit constructors, thus resolving the // ambiguity. value_ is then initialized using its copy constructor. - explicit Impl(const linked_ptr& value) + explicit Impl(const std::shared_ptr& value) : value_before_cast_(*value), value_(ImplicitCast_(value_before_cast_)) {} - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { return value_; } + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) override { return value_; } private: - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(!is_reference::value, + GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(!std::is_reference::value, Result_cannot_be_a_reference_type); // We save the value before casting just in case it is being cast to a // wrapper type. @@ -597,26 +702,22 @@ class ReturnAction { typedef typename Function::Result Result; typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - explicit Impl(const linked_ptr& wrapper) + explicit Impl(const std::shared_ptr& wrapper) : performed_(false), wrapper_(wrapper) {} - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) override { GTEST_CHECK_(!performed_) << "A ByMove() action should only be performed once."; performed_ = true; - return internal::move(wrapper_->payload); + return std::move(wrapper_->payload); } private: bool performed_; - const linked_ptr wrapper_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); + const std::shared_ptr wrapper_; }; - const linked_ptr value_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ReturnAction); + const std::shared_ptr value_; }; // Implements the ReturnNull() action. @@ -627,13 +728,7 @@ class ReturnNullAction { // pointer type on compile time. template static Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { -#if GTEST_LANG_CXX11 return nullptr; -#else - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(internal::is_pointer::value, - ReturnNull_can_be_used_to_return_a_pointer_only); - return NULL; -#endif // GTEST_LANG_CXX11 } }; @@ -643,7 +738,7 @@ class ReturnVoidAction { // Allows Return() to be used in any void-returning function. template static void Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { - CompileAssertTypesEqual(); + static_assert(std::is_void::value, "Result should be void."); } }; @@ -664,7 +759,7 @@ class ReturnRefAction { // Asserts that the function return type is a reference. This // catches the user error of using ReturnRef(x) when Return(x) // should be used, and generates some helpful error message. - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(internal::is_reference::value, + GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(std::is_reference::value, use_Return_instead_of_ReturnRef_to_return_a_value); return Action(new Impl(ref_)); } @@ -679,19 +774,13 @@ class ReturnRefAction { explicit Impl(T& ref) : ref_(ref) {} // NOLINT - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { - return ref_; - } + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) override { return ref_; } private: T& ref_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); }; T& ref_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ReturnRefAction); }; // Implements the polymorphic ReturnRefOfCopy(x) action, which can be @@ -713,7 +802,7 @@ class ReturnRefOfCopyAction { // catches the user error of using ReturnRefOfCopy(x) when Return(x) // should be used, and generates some helpful error message. GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_( - internal::is_reference::value, + std::is_reference::value, use_Return_instead_of_ReturnRefOfCopy_to_return_a_value); return Action(new Impl(value_)); } @@ -728,19 +817,43 @@ class ReturnRefOfCopyAction { explicit Impl(const T& value) : value_(value) {} // NOLINT - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { - return value_; - } + Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) override { return value_; } private: T value_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); }; const T value_; +}; - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ReturnRefOfCopyAction); +// Implements the polymorphic ReturnRoundRobin(v) action, which can be +// used in any function that returns the element_type of v. +template +class ReturnRoundRobinAction { + public: + explicit ReturnRoundRobinAction(std::vector values) { + GTEST_CHECK_(!values.empty()) + << "ReturnRoundRobin requires at least one element."; + state_->values = std::move(values); + } + + template + T operator()(Args&&...) const { + return state_->Next(); + } + + private: + struct State { + T Next() { + T ret_val = values[i++]; + if (i == values.size()) i = 0; + return ret_val; + } + + std::vector values; + size_t i = 0; + }; + std::shared_ptr state_ = std::make_shared(); }; // Implements the polymorphic DoDefault() action. @@ -749,7 +862,7 @@ class DoDefaultAction { // This template type conversion operator allows DoDefault() to be // used in any function. template - operator Action() const { return Action(NULL); } + operator Action() const { return Action(); } // NOLINT }; // Implements the Assign action to set a given pointer referent to a @@ -767,8 +880,6 @@ class AssignAction { private: T1* const ptr_; const T2 value_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(AssignAction); }; #if !GTEST_OS_WINDOWS_MOBILE @@ -790,99 +901,64 @@ class SetErrnoAndReturnAction { private: const int errno_; const T result_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(SetErrnoAndReturnAction); }; #endif // !GTEST_OS_WINDOWS_MOBILE // Implements the SetArgumentPointee(x) action for any function -// whose N-th argument (0-based) is a pointer to x's type. The -// template parameter kIsProto is true iff type A is ProtocolMessage, -// proto2::Message, or a sub-class of those. -template -class SetArgumentPointeeAction { - public: - // Constructs an action that sets the variable pointed to by the - // N-th function argument to 'value'. - explicit SetArgumentPointeeAction(const A& value) : value_(value) {} +// whose N-th argument (0-based) is a pointer to x's type. +template +struct SetArgumentPointeeAction { + A value; - template - void Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - CompileAssertTypesEqual(); - *::testing::get(args) = value_; + template + void operator()(const Args&... args) const { + *::std::get(std::tie(args...)) = value; } - - private: - const A value_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(SetArgumentPointeeAction); }; -template -class SetArgumentPointeeAction { - public: - // Constructs an action that sets the variable pointed to by the - // N-th function argument to 'proto'. Both ProtocolMessage and - // proto2::Message have the CopyFrom() method, so the same - // implementation works for both. - explicit SetArgumentPointeeAction(const Proto& proto) : proto_(new Proto) { - proto_->CopyFrom(proto); +// Implements the Invoke(object_ptr, &Class::Method) action. +template +struct InvokeMethodAction { + Class* const obj_ptr; + const MethodPtr method_ptr; + + template + auto operator()(Args&&... args) const + -> decltype((obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(std::forward(args)...)) { + return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(std::forward(args)...); } - - template - void Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const { - CompileAssertTypesEqual(); - ::testing::get(args)->CopyFrom(*proto_); - } - - private: - const internal::linked_ptr proto_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(SetArgumentPointeeAction); }; // Implements the InvokeWithoutArgs(f) action. The template argument // FunctionImpl is the implementation type of f, which can be either a // function pointer or a functor. InvokeWithoutArgs(f) can be used as an -// Action as long as f's type is compatible with F (i.e. f can be -// assigned to a tr1::function). +// Action as long as f's type is compatible with F. template -class InvokeWithoutArgsAction { - public: - // The c'tor makes a copy of function_impl (either a function - // pointer or a functor). - explicit InvokeWithoutArgsAction(FunctionImpl function_impl) - : function_impl_(function_impl) {} +struct InvokeWithoutArgsAction { + FunctionImpl function_impl; // Allows InvokeWithoutArgs(f) to be used as any action whose type is // compatible with f. - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) { return function_impl_(); } - - private: - FunctionImpl function_impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(InvokeWithoutArgsAction); + template + auto operator()(const Args&...) -> decltype(function_impl()) { + return function_impl(); + } }; // Implements the InvokeWithoutArgs(object_ptr, &Class::Method) action. template -class InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction { - public: - InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction(Class* obj_ptr, MethodPtr method_ptr) - : obj_ptr_(obj_ptr), method_ptr_(method_ptr) {} +struct InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction { + Class* const obj_ptr; + const MethodPtr method_ptr; - template - Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple&) const { - return (obj_ptr_->*method_ptr_)(); + using ReturnType = + decltype((std::declval()->*std::declval())()); + + template + ReturnType operator()(const Args&...) const { + return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(); } - - private: - Class* const obj_ptr_; - const MethodPtr method_ptr_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction); }; // Implements the IgnoreResult(action) action. @@ -904,7 +980,7 @@ class IgnoreResultAction { typedef typename internal::Function::Result Result; // Asserts at compile time that F returns void. - CompileAssertTypesEqual(); + static_assert(std::is_void::value, "Result type should be void."); return Action(new Impl(action_)); } @@ -918,7 +994,7 @@ class IgnoreResultAction { explicit Impl(const A& action) : action_(action) {} - virtual void Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { + void Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) override { // Performs the action and ignores its result. action_.Perform(args); } @@ -930,87 +1006,163 @@ class IgnoreResultAction { OriginalFunction; const Action action_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); }; const A action_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(IgnoreResultAction); }; -// A ReferenceWrapper object represents a reference to type T, -// which can be either const or not. It can be explicitly converted -// from, and implicitly converted to, a T&. Unlike a reference, -// ReferenceWrapper can be copied and can survive template type -// inference. This is used to support by-reference arguments in the -// InvokeArgument(...) action. The idea was from "reference -// wrappers" in tr1, which we don't have in our source tree yet. -template -class ReferenceWrapper { - public: - // Constructs a ReferenceWrapper object from a T&. - explicit ReferenceWrapper(T& l_value) : pointer_(&l_value) {} // NOLINT +template +struct WithArgsAction { + InnerAction action; - // Allows a ReferenceWrapper object to be implicitly converted to - // a T&. - operator T&() const { return *pointer_; } + // The inner action could be anything convertible to Action. + // We use the conversion operator to detect the signature of the inner Action. + template + operator Action() const { // NOLINT + using TupleType = std::tuple; + Action::type...)> + converted(action); + + return [converted](Args... args) -> R { + return converted.Perform(std::forward_as_tuple( + std::get(std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward(args)...))...)); + }; + } +}; + +template +struct DoAllAction { private: - T* pointer_; -}; + template + using NonFinalType = + typename std::conditional::value, T, const T&>::type; -// Allows the expression ByRef(x) to be printed as a reference to x. -template -void PrintTo(const ReferenceWrapper& ref, ::std::ostream* os) { - T& value = ref; - UniversalPrinter::Print(value, os); -} - -// Does two actions sequentially. Used for implementing the DoAll(a1, -// a2, ...) action. -template -class DoBothAction { - public: - DoBothAction(Action1 action1, Action2 action2) - : action1_(action1), action2_(action2) {} - - // This template type conversion operator allows DoAll(a1, ..., a_n) - // to be used in ANY function of compatible type. - template - operator Action() const { - return Action(new Impl(action1_, action2_)); + template + std::vector Convert(IndexSequence) const { + return {ActionT(std::get(actions))...}; } - private: - // Implements the DoAll(...) action for a particular function type F. - template - class Impl : public ActionInterface { - public: - typedef typename Function::Result Result; - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - typedef typename Function::MakeResultVoid VoidResult; + public: + std::tuple actions; - Impl(const Action& action1, const Action& action2) - : action1_(action1), action2_(action2) {} - - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - action1_.Perform(args); - return action2_.Perform(args); - } - - private: - const Action action1_; - const Action action2_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); - }; - - Action1 action1_; - Action2 action2_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(DoBothAction); + template + operator Action() const { // NOLINT + struct Op { + std::vector...)>> converted; + Action last; + R operator()(Args... args) const { + auto tuple_args = std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward(args)...); + for (auto& a : converted) { + a.Perform(tuple_args); + } + return last.Perform(std::move(tuple_args)); + } + }; + return Op{Convert...)>>( + MakeIndexSequence()), + std::get(actions)}; + } }; +template +struct ReturnNewAction { + T* operator()() const { + return internal::Apply( + [](const Params&... unpacked_params) { + return new T(unpacked_params...); + }, + params); + } + std::tuple params; +}; + +template +struct ReturnArgAction { + template + auto operator()(const Args&... args) const -> + typename std::tuple_element>::type { + return std::get(std::tie(args...)); + } +}; + +template +struct SaveArgAction { + Ptr pointer; + + template + void operator()(const Args&... args) const { + *pointer = std::get(std::tie(args...)); + } +}; + +template +struct SaveArgPointeeAction { + Ptr pointer; + + template + void operator()(const Args&... args) const { + *pointer = *std::get(std::tie(args...)); + } +}; + +template +struct SetArgRefereeAction { + T value; + + template + void operator()(Args&&... args) const { + using argk_type = + typename ::std::tuple_element>::type; + static_assert(std::is_lvalue_reference::value, + "Argument must be a reference type."); + std::get(std::tie(args...)) = value; + } +}; + +template +struct SetArrayArgumentAction { + I1 first; + I2 last; + + template + void operator()(const Args&... args) const { + auto value = std::get(std::tie(args...)); + for (auto it = first; it != last; ++it, (void)++value) { + *value = *it; + } + } +}; + +template +struct DeleteArgAction { + template + void operator()(const Args&... args) const { + delete std::get(std::tie(args...)); + } +}; + +template +struct ReturnPointeeAction { + Ptr pointer; + template + auto operator()(const Args&...) const -> decltype(*pointer) { + return *pointer; + } +}; + +#if GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS +template +struct ThrowAction { + T exception; + // We use a conversion operator to adapt to any return type. + template + operator Action() const { // NOLINT + T copy = exception; + return [copy](Args...) -> R { throw copy; }; + } +}; +#endif // GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS + } // namespace internal // An Unused object can be implicitly constructed from ANY value. @@ -1029,9 +1181,9 @@ class DoBothAction { // return sqrt(x*x + y*y); // } // ... -// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) +// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)) // .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel)); -// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) +// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)) // .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex)); // // you could write @@ -1041,25 +1193,56 @@ class DoBothAction { // return sqrt(x*x + y*y); // } // ... -// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); -// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); +// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); +// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin)); typedef internal::IgnoredValue Unused; -// This constructor allows us to turn an Action object into an -// Action, as long as To's arguments can be implicitly converted -// to From's and From's return type cann be implicitly converted to -// To's. -template -template -Action::Action(const Action& from) - : impl_(new internal::ActionAdaptor(from)) {} +// Creates an action that does actions a1, a2, ..., sequentially in +// each invocation. All but the last action will have a readonly view of the +// arguments. +template +internal::DoAllAction::type...> DoAll( + Action&&... action) { + return {std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward(action)...)}; +} + +// WithArg(an_action) creates an action that passes the k-th +// (0-based) argument of the mock function to an_action and performs +// it. It adapts an action accepting one argument to one that accepts +// multiple arguments. For convenience, we also provide +// WithArgs(an_action) (defined below) as a synonym. +template +internal::WithArgsAction::type, k> +WithArg(InnerAction&& action) { + return {std::forward(action)}; +} + +// WithArgs(an_action) creates an action that passes +// the selected arguments of the mock function to an_action and +// performs it. It serves as an adaptor between actions with +// different argument lists. +template +internal::WithArgsAction::type, k, ks...> +WithArgs(InnerAction&& action) { + return {std::forward(action)}; +} + +// WithoutArgs(inner_action) can be used in a mock function with a +// non-empty argument list to perform inner_action, which takes no +// argument. In other words, it adapts an action accepting no +// argument to one that accepts (and ignores) arguments. +template +internal::WithArgsAction::type> +WithoutArgs(InnerAction&& action) { + return {std::forward(action)}; +} // Creates an action that returns 'value'. 'value' is passed by value // instead of const reference - otherwise Return("string literal") // will trigger a compiler error about using array as initializer. template internal::ReturnAction Return(R value) { - return internal::ReturnAction(internal::move(value)); + return internal::ReturnAction(std::move(value)); } // Creates an action that returns NULL. @@ -1078,6 +1261,10 @@ inline internal::ReturnRefAction ReturnRef(R& x) { // NOLINT return internal::ReturnRefAction(x); } +// Prevent using ReturnRef on reference to temporary. +template +internal::ReturnRefAction ReturnRef(R&&) = delete; + // Creates an action that returns the reference to a copy of the // argument. The copy is created when the action is constructed and // lives as long as the action. @@ -1092,7 +1279,24 @@ inline internal::ReturnRefOfCopyAction ReturnRefOfCopy(const R& x) { // invariant. template internal::ByMoveWrapper ByMove(R x) { - return internal::ByMoveWrapper(internal::move(x)); + return internal::ByMoveWrapper(std::move(x)); +} + +// Creates an action that returns an element of `vals`. Calling this action will +// repeatedly return the next value from `vals` until it reaches the end and +// will restart from the beginning. +template +internal::ReturnRoundRobinAction ReturnRoundRobin(std::vector vals) { + return internal::ReturnRoundRobinAction(std::move(vals)); +} + +// Creates an action that returns an element of `vals`. Calling this action will +// repeatedly return the next value from `vals` until it reaches the end and +// will restart from the beginning. +template +internal::ReturnRoundRobinAction ReturnRoundRobin( + std::initializer_list vals) { + return internal::ReturnRoundRobinAction(std::vector(vals)); } // Creates an action that does the default action for the give mock function. @@ -1103,43 +1307,14 @@ inline internal::DoDefaultAction DoDefault() { // Creates an action that sets the variable pointed by the N-th // (0-based) function argument to 'value'. template -PolymorphicAction< - internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, T, internal::IsAProtocolMessage::value> > -SetArgPointee(const T& x) { - return MakePolymorphicAction(internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, T, internal::IsAProtocolMessage::value>(x)); +internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction SetArgPointee(T value) { + return {std::move(value)}; } -#if !((GTEST_GCC_VER_ && GTEST_GCC_VER_ < 40000) || GTEST_OS_SYMBIAN) -// This overload allows SetArgPointee() to accept a string literal. -// GCC prior to the version 4.0 and Symbian C++ compiler cannot distinguish -// this overload from the templated version and emit a compile error. -template -PolymorphicAction< - internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction > -SetArgPointee(const char* p) { - return MakePolymorphicAction(internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, const char*, false>(p)); -} - -template -PolymorphicAction< - internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction > -SetArgPointee(const wchar_t* p) { - return MakePolymorphicAction(internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, const wchar_t*, false>(p)); -} -#endif - // The following version is DEPRECATED. template -PolymorphicAction< - internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, T, internal::IsAProtocolMessage::value> > -SetArgumentPointee(const T& x) { - return MakePolymorphicAction(internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction< - N, T, internal::IsAProtocolMessage::value>(x)); +internal::SetArgumentPointeeAction SetArgumentPointee(T value) { + return {std::move(value)}; } // Creates an action that sets a pointer referent to a given value. @@ -1160,24 +1335,38 @@ SetErrnoAndReturn(int errval, T result) { #endif // !GTEST_OS_WINDOWS_MOBILE -// Various overloads for InvokeWithoutArgs(). +// Various overloads for Invoke(). + +// Legacy function. +// Actions can now be implicitly constructed from callables. No need to create +// wrapper objects. +// This function exists for backwards compatibility. +template +typename std::decay::type Invoke(FunctionImpl&& function_impl) { + return std::forward(function_impl); +} + +// Creates an action that invokes the given method on the given object +// with the mock function's arguments. +template +internal::InvokeMethodAction Invoke(Class* obj_ptr, + MethodPtr method_ptr) { + return {obj_ptr, method_ptr}; +} // Creates an action that invokes 'function_impl' with no argument. template -PolymorphicAction > +internal::InvokeWithoutArgsAction::type> InvokeWithoutArgs(FunctionImpl function_impl) { - return MakePolymorphicAction( - internal::InvokeWithoutArgsAction(function_impl)); + return {std::move(function_impl)}; } // Creates an action that invokes the given method on the given object // with no argument. template -PolymorphicAction > -InvokeWithoutArgs(Class* obj_ptr, MethodPtr method_ptr) { - return MakePolymorphicAction( - internal::InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction( - obj_ptr, method_ptr)); +internal::InvokeMethodWithoutArgsAction InvokeWithoutArgs( + Class* obj_ptr, MethodPtr method_ptr) { + return {obj_ptr, method_ptr}; } // Creates an action that performs an_action and throws away its @@ -1195,11 +1384,304 @@ inline internal::IgnoreResultAction IgnoreResult(const A& an_action) { // where Base is a base class of Derived, just write: // // ByRef(derived) +// +// N.B. ByRef is redundant with std::ref, std::cref and std::reference_wrapper. +// However, it may still be used for consistency with ByMove(). template -inline internal::ReferenceWrapper ByRef(T& l_value) { // NOLINT - return internal::ReferenceWrapper(l_value); +inline ::std::reference_wrapper ByRef(T& l_value) { // NOLINT + return ::std::reference_wrapper(l_value); } +// The ReturnNew(a1, a2, ..., a_k) action returns a pointer to a new +// instance of type T, constructed on the heap with constructor arguments +// a1, a2, ..., and a_k. The caller assumes ownership of the returned value. +template +internal::ReturnNewAction::type...> ReturnNew( + Params&&... params) { + return {std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward(params)...)}; +} + +// Action ReturnArg() returns the k-th argument of the mock function. +template +internal::ReturnArgAction ReturnArg() { + return {}; +} + +// Action SaveArg(pointer) saves the k-th (0-based) argument of the +// mock function to *pointer. +template +internal::SaveArgAction SaveArg(Ptr pointer) { + return {pointer}; +} + +// Action SaveArgPointee(pointer) saves the value pointed to +// by the k-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to *pointer. +template +internal::SaveArgPointeeAction SaveArgPointee(Ptr pointer) { + return {pointer}; +} + +// Action SetArgReferee(value) assigns 'value' to the variable +// referenced by the k-th (0-based) argument of the mock function. +template +internal::SetArgRefereeAction::type> SetArgReferee( + T&& value) { + return {std::forward(value)}; +} + +// Action SetArrayArgument(first, last) copies the elements in +// source range [first, last) to the array pointed to by the k-th +// (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an +// iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the +// source range. +template +internal::SetArrayArgumentAction SetArrayArgument(I1 first, + I2 last) { + return {first, last}; +} + +// Action DeleteArg() deletes the k-th (0-based) argument of the mock +// function. +template +internal::DeleteArgAction DeleteArg() { + return {}; +} + +// This action returns the value pointed to by 'pointer'. +template +internal::ReturnPointeeAction ReturnPointee(Ptr pointer) { + return {pointer}; +} + +// Action Throw(exception) can be used in a mock function of any type +// to throw the given exception. Any copyable value can be thrown. +#if GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS +template +internal::ThrowAction::type> Throw(T&& exception) { + return {std::forward(exception)}; +} +#endif // GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS + +namespace internal { + +// A macro from the ACTION* family (defined later in gmock-generated-actions.h) +// defines an action that can be used in a mock function. Typically, +// these actions only care about a subset of the arguments of the mock +// function. For example, if such an action only uses the second +// argument, it can be used in any mock function that takes >= 2 +// arguments where the type of the second argument is compatible. +// +// Therefore, the action implementation must be prepared to take more +// arguments than it needs. The ExcessiveArg type is used to +// represent those excessive arguments. In order to keep the compiler +// error messages tractable, we define it in the testing namespace +// instead of testing::internal. However, this is an INTERNAL TYPE +// and subject to change without notice, so a user MUST NOT USE THIS +// TYPE DIRECTLY. +struct ExcessiveArg {}; + +// Builds an implementation of an Action<> for some particular signature, using +// a class defined by an ACTION* macro. +template struct ActionImpl; + +template +struct ImplBase { + struct Holder { + // Allows each copy of the Action<> to get to the Impl. + explicit operator const Impl&() const { return *ptr; } + std::shared_ptr ptr; + }; + using type = typename std::conditional::value, + Impl, Holder>::type; +}; + +template +struct ActionImpl : ImplBase::type { + using Base = typename ImplBase::type; + using function_type = R(Args...); + using args_type = std::tuple; + + ActionImpl() = default; // Only defined if appropriate for Base. + explicit ActionImpl(std::shared_ptr impl) : Base{std::move(impl)} { } + + R operator()(Args&&... arg) const { + static constexpr size_t kMaxArgs = + sizeof...(Args) <= 10 ? sizeof...(Args) : 10; + return Apply(MakeIndexSequence{}, + MakeIndexSequence<10 - kMaxArgs>{}, + args_type{std::forward(arg)...}); + } + + template + R Apply(IndexSequence, IndexSequence, + const args_type& args) const { + // Impl need not be specific to the signature of action being implemented; + // only the implementing function body needs to have all of the specific + // types instantiated. Up to 10 of the args that are provided by the + // args_type get passed, followed by a dummy of unspecified type for the + // remainder up to 10 explicit args. + static constexpr ExcessiveArg kExcessArg{}; + return static_cast(*this).template gmock_PerformImpl< + /*function_type=*/function_type, /*return_type=*/R, + /*args_type=*/args_type, + /*argN_type=*/typename std::tuple_element::type...>( + /*args=*/args, std::get(args)..., + ((void)excess_id, kExcessArg)...); + } +}; + +// Stores a default-constructed Impl as part of the Action<>'s +// std::function<>. The Impl should be trivial to copy. +template +::testing::Action MakeAction() { + return ::testing::Action(ActionImpl()); +} + +// Stores just the one given instance of Impl. +template +::testing::Action MakeAction(std::shared_ptr impl) { + return ::testing::Action(ActionImpl(std::move(impl))); +} + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG_UNUSED(i, data, el) \ + , const arg##i##_type& arg##i GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_ +#define GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_ \ + const args_type& args GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_ GMOCK_PP_REPEAT( \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG_UNUSED, , 10) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG(i, data, el) , const arg##i##_type& arg##i +#define GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_ \ + const args_type& args GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG, , 10) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_TEMPLATE_ARG(i, data, el) , typename arg##i##_type +#define GMOCK_ACTION_TEMPLATE_ARGS_NAMES_ \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_TEMPLATE_ARG, , 10)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPENAME_PARAM(i, data, param) , typename param##_type +#define GMOCK_ACTION_TYPENAME_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPENAME_PARAM, , params)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPE_PARAM(i, data, param) , param##_type +#define GMOCK_ACTION_TYPE_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPE_PARAM, , params)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAM(i, data, param) \ + , param##_type gmock_p##i +#define GMOCK_ACTION_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAM, , params)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GVALUE_PARAM(i, data, param) \ + , std::forward(gmock_p##i) +#define GMOCK_ACTION_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_GVALUE_PARAM, , params)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_PARAM(i, data, param) \ + , param(::std::forward(gmock_p##i)) +#define GMOCK_ACTION_INIT_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_TAIL(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_PARAM, , params)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_FIELD_PARAM(i, data, param) param##_type param; +#define GMOCK_ACTION_FIELD_PARAMS_(params) \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_FIELD_PARAM, , params) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, full_name, params) \ + template \ + class full_name { \ + public: \ + explicit full_name(GMOCK_ACTION_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params)) \ + : impl_(std::make_shared( \ + GMOCK_ACTION_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params))) { } \ + full_name(const full_name&) = default; \ + full_name(full_name&&) noexcept = default; \ + template \ + operator ::testing::Action() const { \ + return ::testing::internal::MakeAction(impl_); \ + } \ + private: \ + class gmock_Impl { \ + public: \ + explicit gmock_Impl(GMOCK_ACTION_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params)) \ + : GMOCK_ACTION_INIT_PARAMS_(params) {} \ + template \ + return_type gmock_PerformImpl(GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_) const; \ + GMOCK_ACTION_FIELD_PARAMS_(params) \ + }; \ + std::shared_ptr impl_; \ + }; \ + template \ + inline full_name name( \ + GMOCK_ACTION_TYPE_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params)) { \ + return full_name( \ + GMOCK_ACTION_GVALUE_PARAMS_(params)); \ + } \ + template \ + template \ + return_type full_name::gmock_Impl:: \ + gmock_PerformImpl(GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const + +} // namespace internal + +// Similar to GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION, but no bound parameters are stored. +#define ACTION(name) \ + class name##Action { \ + public: \ + explicit name##Action() noexcept {} \ + name##Action(const name##Action&) noexcept {} \ + template \ + operator ::testing::Action() const { \ + return ::testing::internal::MakeAction(); \ + } \ + private: \ + class gmock_Impl { \ + public: \ + template \ + return_type gmock_PerformImpl(GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_) const; \ + }; \ + }; \ + inline name##Action name() GTEST_MUST_USE_RESULT_; \ + inline name##Action name() { return name##Action(); } \ + template \ + return_type name##Action::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl( \ + GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const + +#define ACTION_P(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P2(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP2, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P3(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP3, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P4(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP4, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P5(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP5, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P6(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP6, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P7(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP7, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P8(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP8, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P9(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP9, (__VA_ARGS__)) + +#define ACTION_P10(name, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ACTION(name, name##ActionP10, (__VA_ARGS__)) + } // namespace testing -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ +#ifdef _MSC_VER +# pragma warning(pop) +#endif + +#endif // GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_ACTIONS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h index fc315f9..fc7f803 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-cardinalities.h @@ -26,8 +26,7 @@ // THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT // (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE // OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) + // Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. // @@ -35,14 +34,20 @@ // cardinalities can be defined by the user implementing the // CardinalityInterface interface if necessary. -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ +// GOOGLETEST_CM0002 DO NOT DELETE + +#ifndef GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ +#define GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ #include +#include #include // NOLINT #include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" #include "gtest/gtest.h" +GTEST_DISABLE_MSC_WARNINGS_PUSH_(4251 \ +/* class A needs to have dll-interface to be used by clients of class B */) + namespace testing { // To implement a cardinality Foo, define: @@ -65,10 +70,12 @@ class CardinalityInterface { virtual int ConservativeLowerBound() const { return 0; } virtual int ConservativeUpperBound() const { return INT_MAX; } - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this + // cardinality. virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this + // cardinality. virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0; // Describes self to an ostream. @@ -77,9 +84,8 @@ class CardinalityInterface { // A Cardinality is a copyable and IMMUTABLE (except by assignment) // object that specifies how many times a mock function is expected to -// be called. The implementation of Cardinality is just a linked_ptr -// to const CardinalityInterface, so copying is fairly cheap. -// Don't inherit from Cardinality! +// be called. The implementation of Cardinality is just a std::shared_ptr +// to const CardinalityInterface. Don't inherit from Cardinality! class GTEST_API_ Cardinality { public: // Constructs a null cardinality. Needed for storing Cardinality @@ -94,17 +100,19 @@ class GTEST_API_ Cardinality { int ConservativeLowerBound() const { return impl_->ConservativeLowerBound(); } int ConservativeUpperBound() const { return impl_->ConservativeUpperBound(); } - // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality. + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this + // cardinality. bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const { return impl_->IsSatisfiedByCallCount(call_count); } - // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality. + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this + // cardinality. bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { return impl_->IsSaturatedByCallCount(call_count); } - // Returns true iff call_count calls will over-saturate this + // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will over-saturate this // cardinality, i.e. exceed the maximum number of allowed calls. bool IsOverSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const { return impl_->IsSaturatedByCallCount(call_count) && @@ -119,7 +127,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ Cardinality { ::std::ostream* os); private: - internal::linked_ptr impl_; + std::shared_ptr impl_; }; // Creates a cardinality that allows at least n calls. @@ -144,4 +152,6 @@ inline Cardinality MakeCardinality(const CardinalityInterface* c) { } // namespace testing -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ +GTEST_DISABLE_MSC_WARNINGS_POP_() // 4251 + +#endif // GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_CARDINALITIES_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0fc6f6f --- /dev/null +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ +// Copyright 2007, Google Inc. +// All rights reserved. +// +// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without +// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are +// met: +// +// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright +// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. +// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above +// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer +// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the +// distribution. +// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its +// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from +// this software without specific prior written permission. +// +// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS +// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT +// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR +// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT +// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, +// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT +// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, +// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY +// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT +// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE +// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. + +// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. +// +// This file implements MOCK_METHOD. + +// GOOGLETEST_CM0002 DO NOT DELETE + +#ifndef GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_INTERNAL_GMOCK_FUNCTION_MOCKER_H_ // NOLINT +#define GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_INTERNAL_GMOCK_FUNCTION_MOCKER_H_ // NOLINT + +#include // IWYU pragma: keep +#include // IWYU pragma: keep + +#include "gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h" +#include "gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h" +#include "gmock/internal/gmock-pp.h" + +namespace testing { +namespace internal { +template +using identity_t = T; + +template +struct ThisRefAdjuster { + template + using AdjustT = typename std::conditional< + std::is_const::type>::value, + typename std::conditional::value, + const T&, const T&&>::type, + typename std::conditional::value, T&, + T&&>::type>::type; + + template + static AdjustT Adjust(const MockType& mock) { + return static_cast>(const_cast(mock)); + } +}; + +} // namespace internal + +// The style guide prohibits "using" statements in a namespace scope +// inside a header file. However, the FunctionMocker class template +// is meant to be defined in the ::testing namespace. The following +// line is just a trick for working around a bug in MSVC 8.0, which +// cannot handle it if we define FunctionMocker in ::testing. +using internal::FunctionMocker; +} // namespace testing + +#define MOCK_METHOD(...) \ + GMOCK_PP_VARIADIC_CALL(GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_1(...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(__VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_2(...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(__VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_3(_Ret, _MethodName, _Args) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_4(_Ret, _MethodName, _Args, ()) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_4(_Ret, _MethodName, _Args, _Spec) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_PARENTHESIS(_Args); \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_PARENTHESIS(_Spec); \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SIGNATURE( \ + GMOCK_PP_NARG0 _Args, GMOCK_INTERNAL_SIGNATURE(_Ret, _Args)); \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SPEC(_Spec) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_IMPL( \ + GMOCK_PP_NARG0 _Args, _MethodName, GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_CONST(_Spec), \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_OVERRIDE(_Spec), GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_FINAL(_Spec), \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_NOEXCEPT_SPEC(_Spec), \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_CALLTYPE(_Spec), GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_REF_SPEC(_Spec), \ + (GMOCK_INTERNAL_SIGNATURE(_Ret, _Args))) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_5(...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(__VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_6(...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(__VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_ARG_7(...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(__VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_WRONG_ARITY(...) \ + static_assert( \ + false, \ + "MOCK_METHOD must be called with 3 or 4 arguments. _Ret, " \ + "_MethodName, _Args and optionally _Spec. _Args and _Spec must be " \ + "enclosed in parentheses. If _Ret is a type with unprotected commas, " \ + "it must also be enclosed in parentheses.") + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_PARENTHESIS(_Tuple) \ + static_assert( \ + GMOCK_PP_IS_ENCLOSED_PARENS(_Tuple), \ + GMOCK_PP_STRINGIZE(_Tuple) " should be enclosed in parentheses.") + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SIGNATURE(_N, ...) \ + static_assert( \ + std::is_function<__VA_ARGS__>::value, \ + "Signature must be a function type, maybe return type contains " \ + "unprotected comma."); \ + static_assert( \ + ::testing::tuple_size::ArgumentTuple>::value == _N, \ + "This method does not take " GMOCK_PP_STRINGIZE( \ + _N) " arguments. Parenthesize all types with unprotected commas.") + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SPEC(_Spec) \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SPEC_ELEMENT, ~, _Spec) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_IMPL(_N, _MethodName, _Constness, \ + _Override, _Final, _NoexceptSpec, \ + _CallType, _RefSpec, _Signature) \ + typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_EXPAND(_CallType) \ + _MethodName(GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_PARAMETER, _Signature, _N)) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(_Constness, const, ) _RefSpec _NoexceptSpec \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(_Override, override, ) GMOCK_PP_IF(_Final, final, ) { \ + GMOCK_MOCKER_(_N, _Constness, _MethodName) \ + .SetOwnerAndName(this, #_MethodName); \ + return GMOCK_MOCKER_(_N, _Constness, _MethodName) \ + .Invoke(GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_FORWARD_ARG, _Signature, _N)); \ + } \ + ::testing::MockSpec gmock_##_MethodName( \ + GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_PARAMETER, _Signature, _N)) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(_Constness, const, ) _RefSpec { \ + GMOCK_MOCKER_(_N, _Constness, _MethodName).RegisterOwner(this); \ + return GMOCK_MOCKER_(_N, _Constness, _MethodName) \ + .With(GMOCK_PP_REPEAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_ARGUMENT, , _N)); \ + } \ + ::testing::MockSpec gmock_##_MethodName( \ + const ::testing::internal::WithoutMatchers&, \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(_Constness, const, )::testing::internal::Function< \ + GMOCK_PP_REMOVE_PARENS(_Signature)>*) const _RefSpec _NoexceptSpec { \ + return ::testing::internal::ThisRefAdjuster::Adjust(*this) \ + .gmock_##_MethodName(GMOCK_PP_REPEAT( \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_A_MATCHER_ARGUMENT, _Signature, _N)); \ + } \ + mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker \ + GMOCK_MOCKER_(_N, _Constness, _MethodName) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__ + +// Five Valid modifiers. +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_CONST(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_CONST, ~, _Tuple)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_OVERRIDE(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA( \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_OVERRIDE, ~, _Tuple)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_HAS_FINAL(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_FINAL, ~, _Tuple)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_NOEXCEPT_SPEC(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_IF_NOEXCEPT, ~, _Tuple) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_IF_NOEXCEPT(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF( \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_NOEXCEPT(_i, _, _elem)), \ + _elem, ) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_REF_SPEC(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_REF_SPEC_IF_REF, ~, _Tuple) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_REF_SPEC_IF_REF(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_REF(_i, _, _elem)), \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_UNPACK_, _elem), ) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_CALLTYPE(_Tuple) \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_CALLTYPE_IMPL, ~, _Tuple) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SPEC_ELEMENT(_i, _, _elem) \ + static_assert( \ + (GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_CONST(_i, _, _elem)) + \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_OVERRIDE(_i, _, _elem)) + \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_FINAL(_i, _, _elem)) + \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_NOEXCEPT(_i, _, _elem)) + \ + GMOCK_PP_HAS_COMMA(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_REF(_i, _, _elem)) + \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE(_elem)) == 1, \ + GMOCK_PP_STRINGIZE( \ + _elem) " cannot be recognized as a valid specification modifier."); + +// Modifiers implementation. +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_CONST(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_CONST_I_, _elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_CONST_I_const , + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_OVERRIDE(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_OVERRIDE_I_, _elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_OVERRIDE_I_override , + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_FINAL(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_FINAL_I_, _elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_FINAL_I_final , + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_NOEXCEPT(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_NOEXCEPT_I_, _elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_NOEXCEPT_I_noexcept , + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_REF(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_REF_I_, _elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DETECT_REF_I_ref , + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_UNPACK_ref(x) x + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_CALLTYPE_IMPL(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE(_elem), \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_VALUE_CALLTYPE, GMOCK_PP_EMPTY) \ + (_elem) + +// TODO(iserna): GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE and +// GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_VALUE_CALLTYPE needed more expansions to work on windows +// maybe they can be simplified somehow. +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE(_arg) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE_I( \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE_HELPER_, _arg)) +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE_I(_arg) GMOCK_PP_IS_ENCLOSED_PARENS(_arg) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_VALUE_CALLTYPE(_arg) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_VALUE_CALLTYPE_I( \ + GMOCK_PP_CAT(GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE_HELPER_, _arg)) +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_VALUE_CALLTYPE_I(_arg) \ + GMOCK_PP_IDENTITY _arg + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_IS_CALLTYPE_HELPER_Calltype + +// Note: The use of `identity_t` here allows _Ret to represent return types that +// would normally need to be specified in a different way. For example, a method +// returning a function pointer must be written as +// +// fn_ptr_return_t (*method(method_args_t...))(fn_ptr_args_t...) +// +// But we only support placing the return type at the beginning. To handle this, +// we wrap all calls in identity_t, so that a declaration will be expanded to +// +// identity_t method(method_args_t...) +// +// This allows us to work around the syntactic oddities of function/method +// types. +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_SIGNATURE(_Ret, _Args) \ + ::testing::internal::identity_t( \ + GMOCK_PP_FOR_EACH(GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_TYPE, _, _Args)) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_GET_TYPE(_i, _, _elem) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + GMOCK_PP_IF(GMOCK_PP_IS_BEGIN_PARENS(_elem), GMOCK_PP_REMOVE_PARENS, \ + GMOCK_PP_IDENTITY) \ + (_elem) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_PARAMETER(_i, _Signature, _) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG_O(_i, GMOCK_PP_REMOVE_PARENS(_Signature)) \ + gmock_a##_i + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_FORWARD_ARG(_i, _Signature, _) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + ::std::forward(gmock_a##_i) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_PARAMETER(_i, _Signature, _) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_O(_i, GMOCK_PP_REMOVE_PARENS(_Signature)) \ + gmock_a##_i + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_ARGUMENT(_i, _1, _2) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + gmock_a##_i + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_A_MATCHER_ARGUMENT(_i, _Signature, _) \ + GMOCK_PP_COMMA_IF(_i) \ + ::testing::A() + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_ARG_O(_i, ...) \ + typename ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::template Arg<_i>::type + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MATCHER_O(_i, ...) \ + const ::testing::Matcher::template Arg<_i>::type>& + +#define MOCK_METHOD0(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 0, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD1(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 1, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD2(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 2, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD3(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 3, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD4(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 4, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD5(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 5, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD6(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 6, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD7(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 7, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD8(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 8, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD9(m, ...) GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 9, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD10(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, , m, 10, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 0, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 1, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 2, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 3, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 4, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 5, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 6, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 7, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 8, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 9, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10(m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, , m, 10, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_METHOD0_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD0(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD1_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD1(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD2_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD2(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD3_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD3(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD4_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD4(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD5_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD5(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD6_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD6(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD7_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD7(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD8_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD8(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD9_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD9(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD10_T(m, ...) MOCK_METHOD10(m, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD2(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD3(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD4(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD5(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD6(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD7(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD8(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD9(m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_T(m, ...) MOCK_CONST_METHOD10(m, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 0, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 1, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 2, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 3, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 4, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 5, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 6, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 7, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 8, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 9, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(, ct, m, 10, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 0, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 1, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 2, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 3, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 4, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 5, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 6, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 7, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 8, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 9, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(const, ct, m, 10, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_METHOD0_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD2_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD3_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD4_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD5_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD6_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD7_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD8_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD9_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_METHOD10_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) +#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ + MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) + +#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHODN(constness, ct, Method, args_num, ...) \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_ASSERT_VALID_SIGNATURE( \ + args_num, ::testing::internal::identity_t<__VA_ARGS__>); \ + GMOCK_INTERNAL_MOCK_METHOD_IMPL( \ + args_num, Method, GMOCK_PP_NARG0(constness), 0, 0, , ct, , \ + (::testing::internal::identity_t<__VA_ARGS__>)) + +#define GMOCK_MOCKER_(arity, constness, Method) \ + GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(gmock##constness##arity##_##Method##_, __LINE__) + +#endif // GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_INTERNAL_GMOCK_FUNCTION_MOCKER_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h deleted file mode 100644 index b5a889c..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2377 +0,0 @@ -// This file was GENERATED by a script. DO NOT EDIT BY HAND!!! - -// Copyright 2007, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements some commonly used variadic actions. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-actions.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -// InvokeHelper knows how to unpack an N-tuple and invoke an N-ary -// function or method with the unpacked values, where F is a function -// type that takes N arguments. -template -class InvokeHelper; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple<>&) { - return function(); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple<>&) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), - get<6>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), - get<7>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), - get<6>(args), get<7>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), - get<7>(args), get<8>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), - get<6>(args), get<7>(args), get<8>(args)); - } -}; - -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return function(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), - get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), - get<7>(args), get<8>(args), get<9>(args)); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)(get<0>(args), get<1>(args), - get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), get<5>(args), - get<6>(args), get<7>(args), get<8>(args), get<9>(args)); - } -}; - -// An INTERNAL macro for extracting the type of a tuple field. It's -// subject to change without notice - DO NOT USE IN USER CODE! -#define GMOCK_FIELD_(Tuple, N) \ - typename ::testing::tuple_element::type - -// SelectArgs::type is the -// type of an n-ary function whose i-th (1-based) argument type is the -// k{i}-th (0-based) field of ArgumentTuple, which must be a tuple -// type, and whose return type is Result. For example, -// SelectArgs, 0, 3>::type -// is int(bool, long). -// -// SelectArgs::Select(args) -// returns the selected fields (k1, k2, ..., k_n) of args as a tuple. -// For example, -// SelectArgs, 2, 0>::Select( -// ::testing::make_tuple(true, 'a', 2.5)) -// returns tuple (2.5, true). -// -// The numbers in list k1, k2, ..., k_n must be >= 0, where n can be -// in the range [0, 10]. Duplicates are allowed and they don't have -// to be in an ascending or descending order. - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k6), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k7), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k8), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k9), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k10)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& /* args */) { - return SelectedArgs(); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k6)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k6), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k7)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k6), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k7), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k8)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args)); - } -}; - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type(GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k1), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k2), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k3), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k4), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k5), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k6), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k7), - GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k8), GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k9)); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs(get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args), get(args), get(args), - get(args), get(args)); - } -}; - -#undef GMOCK_FIELD_ - -// Implements the WithArgs action. -template -class WithArgsAction { - public: - explicit WithArgsAction(const InnerAction& action) : action_(action) {} - - template - operator Action() const { return MakeAction(new Impl(action_)); } - - private: - template - class Impl : public ActionInterface { - public: - typedef typename Function::Result Result; - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - explicit Impl(const InnerAction& action) : action_(action) {} - - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return action_.Perform(SelectArgs::Select(args)); - } - - private: - typedef typename SelectArgs::type InnerFunctionType; - - Action action_; - }; - - const InnerAction action_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(WithArgsAction); -}; - -// A macro from the ACTION* family (defined later in this file) -// defines an action that can be used in a mock function. Typically, -// these actions only care about a subset of the arguments of the mock -// function. For example, if such an action only uses the second -// argument, it can be used in any mock function that takes >= 2 -// arguments where the type of the second argument is compatible. -// -// Therefore, the action implementation must be prepared to take more -// arguments than it needs. The ExcessiveArg type is used to -// represent those excessive arguments. In order to keep the compiler -// error messages tractable, we define it in the testing namespace -// instead of testing::internal. However, this is an INTERNAL TYPE -// and subject to change without notice, so a user MUST NOT USE THIS -// TYPE DIRECTLY. -struct ExcessiveArg {}; - -// A helper class needed for implementing the ACTION* macros. -template -class ActionHelper { - public: - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple<>& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl<>(args, ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), - get<1>(args), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), - get<1>(args), get<2>(args), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), - get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, - get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), - ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, - get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), - get<5>(args), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, - get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), get<4>(args), - get<5>(args), get<6>(args), ExcessiveArg(), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), - get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), get<7>(args), ExcessiveArg(), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), - get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), get<7>(args), get<8>(args), - ExcessiveArg()); - } - - template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl(args, get<0>(args), get<1>(args), get<2>(args), get<3>(args), - get<4>(args), get<5>(args), get<6>(args), get<7>(args), get<8>(args), - get<9>(args)); - } -}; - -} // namespace internal - -// Various overloads for Invoke(). - -// WithArgs(an_action) creates an action that passes -// the selected arguments of the mock function to an_action and -// performs it. It serves as an adaptor between actions with -// different argument lists. C++ doesn't support default arguments for -// function templates, so we have to overload it. -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -template -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - -// Creates an action that does actions a1, a2, ..., sequentially in -// each invocation. -template -inline internal::DoBothAction -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2) { - return internal::DoBothAction(a1, a2); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5, Action6 a6) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5, a6)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5, Action6 a6, - Action7 a7) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5, Action6 a6, - Action7 a7, Action8 a8) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > > > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5, Action6 a6, - Action7 a7, Action8 a8, Action9 a9) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9)); -} - -template -inline internal::DoBothAction > > > > > > > > -DoAll(Action1 a1, Action2 a2, Action3 a3, Action4 a4, Action5 a5, Action6 a6, - Action7 a7, Action8 a8, Action9 a9, Action10 a10) { - return DoAll(a1, DoAll(a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10)); -} - -} // namespace testing - -// The ACTION* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to -// define custom actions easily. The syntax: -// -// ACTION(name) { statements; } -// -// will define an action with the given name that executes the -// statements. The value returned by the statements will be used as -// the return value of the action. Inside the statements, you can -// refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function by -// 'argK', and refer to its type by 'argK_type'. For example: -// -// ACTION(IncrementArg1) { -// arg1_type temp = arg1; -// return ++(*temp); -// } -// -// allows you to write -// -// ...WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -// -// You can also refer to the entire argument tuple and its type by -// 'args' and 'args_type', and refer to the mock function type and its -// return type by 'function_type' and 'return_type'. -// -// Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -// arguments. However rest assured that your code is still type-safe: -// you'll get a compiler error if *arg1 doesn't support the ++ -// operator, or if the type of ++(*arg1) isn't compatible with the -// mock function's return type, for example. -// -// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the action. For that you can use -// another macro: -// -// ACTION_P(name, param_name) { statements; } -// -// For example: -// -// ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -// -// will allow you to write: -// -// ...WillOnce(Add(5)); -// -// Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter -// either. If you need to reference the type of a parameter named -// 'foo', you can write 'foo_type'. For example, in the body of -// ACTION_P(Add, n) above, you can write 'n_type' to refer to the type -// of 'n'. -// -// We also provide ACTION_P2, ACTION_P3, ..., up to ACTION_P10 to support -// multi-parameter actions. -// -// For the purpose of typing, you can view -// -// ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { ... } -// -// as shorthand for -// -// template -// FooActionPk Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -// -// In particular, you can provide the template type arguments -// explicitly when invoking Foo(), as in Foo(5, false); -// although usually you can rely on the compiler to infer the types -// for you automatically. You can assign the result of expression -// Foo(p1, ..., pk) to a variable of type FooActionPk. This can be useful when composing actions. -// -// You can also overload actions with different numbers of parameters: -// -// ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -// ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -// -// While it's tempting to always use the ACTION* macros when defining -// a new action, you should also consider implementing ActionInterface -// or using MakePolymorphicAction() instead, especially if you need to -// use the action a lot. While these approaches require more work, -// they give you more control on the types of the mock function -// arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads to -// better compiler error messages that pay off in the long run. They -// also allow overloading actions based on parameter types (as opposed -// to just based on the number of parameters). -// -// CAVEAT: -// -// ACTION*() can only be used in a namespace scope. The reason is -// that C++ doesn't yet allow function-local types to be used to -// instantiate templates. The up-coming C++0x standard will fix this. -// Once that's done, we'll consider supporting using ACTION*() inside -// a function. -// -// MORE INFORMATION: -// -// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'ACTION' -// on http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook. - -// An internal macro needed for implementing ACTION*(). -#define GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_\ - const args_type& args GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg0_type arg0 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg1_type arg1 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg2_type arg2 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg3_type arg3 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg4_type arg4 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg5_type arg5 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg6_type arg6 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg7_type arg7 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg8_type arg8 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_, \ - arg9_type arg9 GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_ - -// Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters -// that cannot be inferred from its value parameters. ACTION() and -// ACTION_P*() don't support that. ACTION_TEMPLATE() remedies that -// and can be viewed as an extension to ACTION() and ACTION_P*(). -// -// The syntax: -// -// ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, -// HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), -// AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -// -// defines an action template that takes m explicit template -// parameters and n value parameters. name_i is the name of the i-th -// template parameter, and kind_i specifies whether it's a typename, -// an integral constant, or a template. p_i is the name of the i-th -// value parameter. -// -// Example: -// -// // DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// // function to type T and copies it to *output. -// ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, -// HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), -// AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { -// *output = T(::testing::get(args)); -// } -// ... -// int n; -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) -// .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -// -// To create an instance of an action template, write: -// -// ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -// -// where the ts are the template arguments and the vs are the value -// arguments. The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. -// If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -// provide additional template arguments: -// -// ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -// -// where u_i is the desired type of v_i. -// -// ACTION_TEMPLATE and ACTION/ACTION_P* can be overloaded on the -// number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -// parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following -// is unclear: -// -// OverloadedAction(x); -// -// Are we using a single-template-parameter action where 'bool' refers -// to the type of x, or are we using a two-template-parameter action -// where the compiler is asked to infer the type of x? -// -// Implementation notes: -// -// GMOCK_INTERNAL_*_HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS and -// GMOCK_INTERNAL_*_AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS are internal macros for -// implementing ACTION_TEMPLATE. The main trick we use is to create -// new macro invocations when expanding a macro. For example, we have -// -// #define ACTION_TEMPLATE(name, template_params, value_params) -// ... GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_##template_params ... -// -// which causes ACTION_TEMPLATE(..., HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), ...) -// to expand to -// -// ... GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T) ... -// -// Since GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS is a macro, the -// preprocessor will continue to expand it to -// -// ... typename T ... -// -// This technique conforms to the C++ standard and is portable. It -// allows us to implement action templates using O(N) code, where N is -// the maximum number of template/value parameters supported. Without -// using it, we'd have to devote O(N^2) amount of code to implement all -// combinations of m and n. - -// Declares the template parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0) kind0 name0 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, \ - name1) kind0 name0, kind1 name1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_3_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, kind2 name2 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_4_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, kind2 name2, \ - kind3 name3 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_5_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, \ - kind2 name2, kind3 name3, kind4 name4 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_6_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5) kind0 name0, \ - kind1 name1, kind2 name2, kind3 name3, kind4 name4, kind5 name5 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_7_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, \ - name6) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, kind2 name2, kind3 name3, kind4 name4, \ - kind5 name5, kind6 name6 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_8_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, name6, \ - kind7, name7) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, kind2 name2, kind3 name3, \ - kind4 name4, kind5 name5, kind6 name6, kind7 name7 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_9_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, name6, \ - kind7, name7, kind8, name8) kind0 name0, kind1 name1, kind2 name2, \ - kind3 name3, kind4 name4, kind5 name5, kind6 name6, kind7 name7, \ - kind8 name8 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_10_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, \ - name1, kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, \ - name6, kind7, name7, kind8, name8, kind9, name9) kind0 name0, \ - kind1 name1, kind2 name2, kind3 name3, kind4 name4, kind5 name5, \ - kind6 name6, kind7 name7, kind8 name8, kind9 name9 - -// Lists the template parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0) name0 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, \ - name1) name0, name1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_3_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2) name0, name1, name2 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_4_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3) name0, name1, name2, name3 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_5_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4) name0, name1, name2, name3, \ - name4 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_6_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5) name0, name1, \ - name2, name3, name4, name5 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_7_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, \ - name6) name0, name1, name2, name3, name4, name5, name6 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_8_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, name6, \ - kind7, name7) name0, name1, name2, name3, name4, name5, name6, name7 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_9_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, name1, \ - kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, name6, \ - kind7, name7, kind8, name8) name0, name1, name2, name3, name4, name5, \ - name6, name7, name8 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_10_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind0, name0, kind1, \ - name1, kind2, name2, kind3, name3, kind4, name4, kind5, name5, kind6, \ - name6, kind7, name7, kind8, name8, kind9, name9) name0, name1, name2, \ - name3, name4, name5, name6, name7, name8, name9 - -// Declares the types of value parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) , typename p0##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) , \ - typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) , \ - typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) , \ - typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4) , \ - typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) , \ - typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type, typename p5##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6) , typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type, typename p5##_type, \ - typename p6##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7) , typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type, typename p5##_type, \ - typename p6##_type, typename p7##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8) , typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, typename p2##_type, \ - typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type, typename p5##_type, \ - typename p6##_type, typename p7##_type, typename p8##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8, p9) , typename p0##_type, typename p1##_type, \ - typename p2##_type, typename p3##_type, typename p4##_type, \ - typename p5##_type, typename p6##_type, typename p7##_type, \ - typename p8##_type, typename p9##_type - -// Initializes the value parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS()\ - () -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0) : p0(gmock_p0) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8) -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8, p9)\ - (p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, p8##_type gmock_p8, \ - p9##_type gmock_p9) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8), p9(gmock_p9) - -// Declares the fields for storing the value parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) p0##_type p0; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) p0##_type p0; \ - p1##_type p1; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) p0##_type p0; \ - p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) p0##_type p0; \ - p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, \ - p4) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; p4##_type p4; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, \ - p5) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; p4##_type p4; \ - p5##_type p5; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; p4##_type p4; \ - p5##_type p5; p6##_type p6; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; p4##_type p4; \ - p5##_type p5; p6##_type p6; p7##_type p7; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; \ - p4##_type p4; p5##_type p5; p6##_type p6; p7##_type p7; p8##_type p8; -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8, p9) p0##_type p0; p1##_type p1; p2##_type p2; p3##_type p3; \ - p4##_type p4; p5##_type p5; p6##_type p6; p7##_type p7; p8##_type p8; \ - p9##_type p9; - -// Lists the value parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) p0 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) p0, p1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) p0, p1, p2 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) p0, p1, p2, p3 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4) p0, p1, \ - p2, p3, p4 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) p0, \ - p1, p2, p3, p4, p5 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6) p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7) p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8) p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8, p9) p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9 - -// Lists the value parameter types. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) , p0##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) , p0##_type, \ - p1##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) , p0##_type, \ - p1##_type, p2##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) , \ - p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4) , \ - p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) , \ - p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type, p5##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6) , p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type, p5##_type, \ - p6##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7) , p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type, \ - p5##_type, p6##_type, p7##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8) , p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type, \ - p5##_type, p6##_type, p7##_type, p8##_type -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8, p9) , p0##_type, p1##_type, p2##_type, p3##_type, p4##_type, \ - p5##_type, p6##_type, p7##_type, p8##_type, p9##_type - -// Declares the value parameters. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) p0##_type p0 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, \ - p4) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, \ - p5) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, \ - p5##_type p5 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, \ - p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, \ - p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, p8##_type p8 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8, p9) p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, p8##_type p8, \ - p9##_type p9 - -// The suffix of the class template implementing the action template. -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS() -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0) P -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1) P2 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2) P3 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3) P4 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4) P5 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) P6 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6) P7 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7) P8 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8) P9 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, \ - p7, p8, p9) P10 - -// The name of the class template implementing the action template. -#define GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)\ - GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(name##Action, GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_##value_params) - -#define ACTION_TEMPLATE(name, template_params, value_params)\ - template \ - class GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params) {\ - public:\ - explicit GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_##value_params {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - explicit gmock_Impl GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_##value_params {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_##value_params\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(\ - new gmock_Impl(GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##value_params));\ - }\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_##value_params\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params));\ - };\ - template \ - inline GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params> name(\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_##value_params) {\ - return GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params>(\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##value_params);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params>::gmock_Impl::\ - gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION(name)\ - class name##Action {\ - public:\ - name##Action() {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl() {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl());\ - }\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##Action);\ - };\ - inline name##Action name() {\ - return name##Action();\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##Action::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P(name, p0)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP {\ - public:\ - explicit name##ActionP(p0##_type gmock_p0) : p0(gmock_p0) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - explicit gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0) : p0(gmock_p0) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP name(p0##_type p0) {\ - return name##ActionP(p0);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P2(name, p0, p1)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP2 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP2(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1) : p0(gmock_p0), \ - p1(gmock_p1) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1) : p0(gmock_p0), \ - p1(gmock_p1) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP2);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP2 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1) {\ - return name##ActionP2(p0, p1);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP2::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P3(name, p0, p1, p2)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP3 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP3(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP3);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP3 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2) {\ - return name##ActionP3(p0, p1, p2);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP3::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P4(name, p0, p1, p2, p3)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP4 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP4(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP4);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP4 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, \ - p3##_type p3) {\ - return name##ActionP4(p0, p1, \ - p2, p3);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP4::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P5(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP5 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP5(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, \ - p4##_type gmock_p4) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4) : p0(gmock_p0), \ - p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP5);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP5 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4) {\ - return name##ActionP5(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP5::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P6(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP6 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP6(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP6);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP6 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, \ - p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5) {\ - return name##ActionP6(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP6::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P7(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP7 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP7(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), \ - p6(gmock_p6) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP7);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP7 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, \ - p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, \ - p6##_type p6) {\ - return name##ActionP7(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP7::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P8(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP8 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP8(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, \ - p7##_type gmock_p7) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7) : p0(gmock_p0), \ - p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), \ - p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP8);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP8 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, \ - p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7) {\ - return name##ActionP8(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP8::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P9(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP9 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP9(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7), p8(gmock_p8) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP9);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP9 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, \ - p8##_type p8) {\ - return name##ActionP9(p0, p1, p2, \ - p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP9::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -#define ACTION_P10(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9)\ - template \ - class name##ActionP10 {\ - public:\ - name##ActionP10(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8, p9##_type gmock_p9) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7), p8(gmock_p8), p9(gmock_p9) {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, p8##_type gmock_p8, \ - p9##_type gmock_p9) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7), p8(gmock_p8), p9(gmock_p9) {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template \ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, arg0_type arg0, \ - arg1_type arg1, arg2_type arg2, arg3_type arg3, arg4_type arg4, \ - arg5_type arg5, arg6_type arg6, arg7_type arg7, arg8_type arg8, \ - arg9_type arg9) const;\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - p9##_type p9;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7, p8, p9));\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - p9##_type p9;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##ActionP10);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##ActionP10 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, p8##_type p8, \ - p9##_type p9) {\ - return name##ActionP10(p0, \ - p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - name##ActionP10::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -namespace testing { - - -// The ACTION*() macros trigger warning C4100 (unreferenced formal -// parameter) in MSVC with -W4. Unfortunately they cannot be fixed in -// the macro definition, as the warnings are generated when the macro -// is expanded and macro expansion cannot contain #pragma. Therefore -// we suppress them here. -#ifdef _MSC_VER -# pragma warning(push) -# pragma warning(disable:4100) -#endif - -// Various overloads for InvokeArgument(). -// -// The InvokeArgument(a1, a2, ..., a_k) action invokes the N-th -// (0-based) argument, which must be a k-ary callable, of the mock -// function, with arguments a1, a2, ..., a_k. -// -// Notes: -// -// 1. The arguments are passed by value by default. If you need to -// pass an argument by reference, wrap it inside ByRef(). For -// example, -// -// InvokeArgument<1>(5, string("Hello"), ByRef(foo)) -// -// passes 5 and string("Hello") by value, and passes foo by -// reference. -// -// 2. If the callable takes an argument by reference but ByRef() is -// not used, it will receive the reference to a copy of the value, -// instead of the original value. For example, when the 0-th -// argument of the mock function takes a const string&, the action -// -// InvokeArgument<0>(string("Hello")) -// -// makes a copy of the temporary string("Hello") object and passes a -// reference of the copy, instead of the original temporary object, -// to the callable. This makes it easy for a user to define an -// InvokeArgument action from temporary values and have it performed -// later. - -namespace internal { -namespace invoke_argument { - -// Appears in InvokeArgumentAdl's argument list to help avoid -// accidental calls to user functions of the same name. -struct AdlTag {}; - -// InvokeArgumentAdl - a helper for InvokeArgument. -// The basic overloads are provided here for generic functors. -// Overloads for other custom-callables are provided in the -// internal/custom/callback-actions.h header. - -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f) { - return f(); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1) { - return f(a1); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2) { - return f(a1, a2); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3) { - return f(a1, a2, a3); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, - A7 a7) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, - A7 a7, A8 a8) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, - A7 a7, A8 a8, A9 a9) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9); -} -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, - A7 a7, A8 a8, A9 a9, A10 a10) { - return f(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10); -} -} // namespace invoke_argument -} // namespace internal - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS()) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args)); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9)) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args), p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9); -} - -// Various overloads for ReturnNew(). -// -// The ReturnNew(a1, a2, ..., a_k) action returns a pointer to a new -// instance of type T, constructed on the heap with constructor arguments -// a1, a2, ..., and a_k. The caller assumes ownership of the returned value. -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS()) { - return new T(); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p0)) { - return new T(p0); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1)) { - return new T(p0, p1); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_3_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_4_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_5_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_6_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_7_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_8_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_9_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8); -} - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_10_VALUE_PARAMS(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9)) { - return new T(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9); -} - -#ifdef _MSC_VER -# pragma warning(pop) -#endif - -} // namespace testing - -// Include any custom actions added by the local installation. -// We must include this header at the end to make sure it can use the -// declarations from this file. -#include "gmock/internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h" - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump deleted file mode 100644 index 66d9f9d..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump +++ /dev/null @@ -1,794 +0,0 @@ -$$ -*- mode: c++; -*- -$$ This is a Pump source file. Please use Pump to convert it to -$$ gmock-generated-actions.h. -$$ -$var n = 10 $$ The maximum arity we support. -$$}} This meta comment fixes auto-indentation in editors. -// Copyright 2007, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements some commonly used variadic actions. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-actions.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -// InvokeHelper knows how to unpack an N-tuple and invoke an N-ary -// function or method with the unpacked values, where F is a function -// type that takes N arguments. -template -class InvokeHelper; - - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -$var types = [[$for j [[, typename A$j]]]] -$var as = [[$for j, [[A$j]]]] -$var args = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ args]]]] -$var gets = [[$for j, [[get<$(j - 1)>(args)]]]] -template -class InvokeHelper > { - public: - template - static R Invoke(Function function, const ::testing::tuple<$as>&$args) { - return function($gets); - } - - template - static R InvokeMethod(Class* obj_ptr, - MethodPtr method_ptr, - const ::testing::tuple<$as>&$args) { - return (obj_ptr->*method_ptr)($gets); - } -}; - - -]] -// An INTERNAL macro for extracting the type of a tuple field. It's -// subject to change without notice - DO NOT USE IN USER CODE! -#define GMOCK_FIELD_(Tuple, N) \ - typename ::testing::tuple_element::type - -$range i 1..n - -// SelectArgs::type is the -// type of an n-ary function whose i-th (1-based) argument type is the -// k{i}-th (0-based) field of ArgumentTuple, which must be a tuple -// type, and whose return type is Result. For example, -// SelectArgs, 0, 3>::type -// is int(bool, long). -// -// SelectArgs::Select(args) -// returns the selected fields (k1, k2, ..., k_n) of args as a tuple. -// For example, -// SelectArgs, 2, 0>::Select( -// ::testing::make_tuple(true, 'a', 2.5)) -// returns tuple (2.5, true). -// -// The numbers in list k1, k2, ..., k_n must be >= 0, where n can be -// in the range [0, $n]. Duplicates are allowed and they don't have -// to be in an ascending or descending order. - -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type($for i, [[GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k$i)]]); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return SelectedArgs($for i, [[get(args)]]); - } -}; - - -$for i [[ -$range j 1..n -$range j1 1..i-1 -template -class SelectArgs { - public: - typedef Result type($for j1, [[GMOCK_FIELD_(ArgumentTuple, k$j1)]]); - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple SelectedArgs; - static SelectedArgs Select(const ArgumentTuple& [[]] -$if i == 1 [[/* args */]] $else [[args]]) { - return SelectedArgs($for j1, [[get(args)]]); - } -}; - - -]] -#undef GMOCK_FIELD_ - -$var ks = [[$for i, [[k$i]]]] - -// Implements the WithArgs action. -template -class WithArgsAction { - public: - explicit WithArgsAction(const InnerAction& action) : action_(action) {} - - template - operator Action() const { return MakeAction(new Impl(action_)); } - - private: - template - class Impl : public ActionInterface { - public: - typedef typename Function::Result Result; - typedef typename Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - explicit Impl(const InnerAction& action) : action_(action) {} - - virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) { - return action_.Perform(SelectArgs::Select(args)); - } - - private: - typedef typename SelectArgs::type InnerFunctionType; - - Action action_; - }; - - const InnerAction action_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(WithArgsAction); -}; - -// A macro from the ACTION* family (defined later in this file) -// defines an action that can be used in a mock function. Typically, -// these actions only care about a subset of the arguments of the mock -// function. For example, if such an action only uses the second -// argument, it can be used in any mock function that takes >= 2 -// arguments where the type of the second argument is compatible. -// -// Therefore, the action implementation must be prepared to take more -// arguments than it needs. The ExcessiveArg type is used to -// represent those excessive arguments. In order to keep the compiler -// error messages tractable, we define it in the testing namespace -// instead of testing::internal. However, this is an INTERNAL TYPE -// and subject to change without notice, so a user MUST NOT USE THIS -// TYPE DIRECTLY. -struct ExcessiveArg {}; - -// A helper class needed for implementing the ACTION* macros. -template -class ActionHelper { - public: -$range i 0..n -$for i - -[[ -$var template = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ -$range j 0..i-1 - template <$for j, [[typename A$j]]> -]]]] -$range j 0..i-1 -$var As = [[$for j, [[A$j]]]] -$var as = [[$for j, [[get<$j>(args)]]]] -$range k 1..n-i -$var eas = [[$for k, [[ExcessiveArg()]]]] -$var arg_list = [[$if (i==0) | (i==n) [[$as$eas]] $else [[$as, $eas]]]] -$template - static Result Perform(Impl* impl, const ::testing::tuple<$As>& args) { - return impl->template gmock_PerformImpl<$As>(args, $arg_list); - } - -]] -}; - -} // namespace internal - -// Various overloads for Invoke(). - -// WithArgs(an_action) creates an action that passes -// the selected arguments of the mock function to an_action and -// performs it. It serves as an adaptor between actions with -// different argument lists. C++ doesn't support default arguments for -// function templates, so we have to overload it. - -$range i 1..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -template <$for j [[int k$j, ]]typename InnerAction> -inline internal::WithArgsAction -WithArgs(const InnerAction& action) { - return internal::WithArgsAction(action); -} - - -]] -// Creates an action that does actions a1, a2, ..., sequentially in -// each invocation. -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 2..i -$var types = [[$for j, [[typename Action$j]]]] -$var Aas = [[$for j [[, Action$j a$j]]]] - -template -$range k 1..i-1 - -inline $for k [[internal::DoBothAction]] - -DoAll(Action1 a1$Aas) { -$if i==2 [[ - - return internal::DoBothAction(a1, a2); -]] $else [[ -$range j2 2..i - - return DoAll(a1, DoAll($for j2, [[a$j2]])); -]] - -} - -]] - -} // namespace testing - -// The ACTION* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to -// define custom actions easily. The syntax: -// -// ACTION(name) { statements; } -// -// will define an action with the given name that executes the -// statements. The value returned by the statements will be used as -// the return value of the action. Inside the statements, you can -// refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function by -// 'argK', and refer to its type by 'argK_type'. For example: -// -// ACTION(IncrementArg1) { -// arg1_type temp = arg1; -// return ++(*temp); -// } -// -// allows you to write -// -// ...WillOnce(IncrementArg1()); -// -// You can also refer to the entire argument tuple and its type by -// 'args' and 'args_type', and refer to the mock function type and its -// return type by 'function_type' and 'return_type'. -// -// Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function -// arguments. However rest assured that your code is still type-safe: -// you'll get a compiler error if *arg1 doesn't support the ++ -// operator, or if the type of ++(*arg1) isn't compatible with the -// mock function's return type, for example. -// -// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the action. For that you can use -// another macro: -// -// ACTION_P(name, param_name) { statements; } -// -// For example: -// -// ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; } -// -// will allow you to write: -// -// ...WillOnce(Add(5)); -// -// Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter -// either. If you need to reference the type of a parameter named -// 'foo', you can write 'foo_type'. For example, in the body of -// ACTION_P(Add, n) above, you can write 'n_type' to refer to the type -// of 'n'. -// -// We also provide ACTION_P2, ACTION_P3, ..., up to ACTION_P$n to support -// multi-parameter actions. -// -// For the purpose of typing, you can view -// -// ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { ... } -// -// as shorthand for -// -// template -// FooActionPk Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -// -// In particular, you can provide the template type arguments -// explicitly when invoking Foo(), as in Foo(5, false); -// although usually you can rely on the compiler to infer the types -// for you automatically. You can assign the result of expression -// Foo(p1, ..., pk) to a variable of type FooActionPk. This can be useful when composing actions. -// -// You can also overload actions with different numbers of parameters: -// -// ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... } -// ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... } -// -// While it's tempting to always use the ACTION* macros when defining -// a new action, you should also consider implementing ActionInterface -// or using MakePolymorphicAction() instead, especially if you need to -// use the action a lot. While these approaches require more work, -// they give you more control on the types of the mock function -// arguments and the action parameters, which in general leads to -// better compiler error messages that pay off in the long run. They -// also allow overloading actions based on parameter types (as opposed -// to just based on the number of parameters). -// -// CAVEAT: -// -// ACTION*() can only be used in a namespace scope. The reason is -// that C++ doesn't yet allow function-local types to be used to -// instantiate templates. The up-coming C++0x standard will fix this. -// Once that's done, we'll consider supporting using ACTION*() inside -// a function. -// -// MORE INFORMATION: -// -// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'ACTION' -// on http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook. - -$range i 0..n -$range k 0..n-1 - -// An internal macro needed for implementing ACTION*(). -#define GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_\ - const args_type& args GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_ -$for k [[, \ - arg$k[[]]_type arg$k GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_]] - - -// Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters -// that cannot be inferred from its value parameters. ACTION() and -// ACTION_P*() don't support that. ACTION_TEMPLATE() remedies that -// and can be viewed as an extension to ACTION() and ACTION_P*(). -// -// The syntax: -// -// ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName, -// HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m), -// AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; } -// -// defines an action template that takes m explicit template -// parameters and n value parameters. name_i is the name of the i-th -// template parameter, and kind_i specifies whether it's a typename, -// an integral constant, or a template. p_i is the name of the i-th -// value parameter. -// -// Example: -// -// // DuplicateArg(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock -// // function to type T and copies it to *output. -// ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg, -// HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T), -// AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) { -// *output = T(::testing::get(args)); -// } -// ... -// int n; -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _)) -// .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n)); -// -// To create an instance of an action template, write: -// -// ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -// -// where the ts are the template arguments and the vs are the value -// arguments. The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. -// If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can -// provide additional template arguments: -// -// ActionName(v1, ..., v_n) -// -// where u_i is the desired type of v_i. -// -// ACTION_TEMPLATE and ACTION/ACTION_P* can be overloaded on the -// number of value parameters, but not on the number of template -// parameters. Without the restriction, the meaning of the following -// is unclear: -// -// OverloadedAction(x); -// -// Are we using a single-template-parameter action where 'bool' refers -// to the type of x, or are we using a two-template-parameter action -// where the compiler is asked to infer the type of x? -// -// Implementation notes: -// -// GMOCK_INTERNAL_*_HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS and -// GMOCK_INTERNAL_*_AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS are internal macros for -// implementing ACTION_TEMPLATE. The main trick we use is to create -// new macro invocations when expanding a macro. For example, we have -// -// #define ACTION_TEMPLATE(name, template_params, value_params) -// ... GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_##template_params ... -// -// which causes ACTION_TEMPLATE(..., HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), ...) -// to expand to -// -// ... GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T) ... -// -// Since GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS is a macro, the -// preprocessor will continue to expand it to -// -// ... typename T ... -// -// This technique conforms to the C++ standard and is portable. It -// allows us to implement action templates using O(N) code, where N is -// the maximum number of template/value parameters supported. Without -// using it, we'd have to devote O(N^2) amount of code to implement all -// combinations of m and n. - -// Declares the template parameters. - -$range j 1..n -$for j [[ -$range m 0..j-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_HAS_$j[[]] -_TEMPLATE_PARAMS($for m, [[kind$m, name$m]]) $for m, [[kind$m name$m]] - - -]] - -// Lists the template parameters. - -$for j [[ -$range m 0..j-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_HAS_$j[[]] -_TEMPLATE_PARAMS($for m, [[kind$m, name$m]]) $for m, [[name$m]] - - -]] - -// Declares the types of value parameters. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_TYPE_AND_$i[[]] -_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) $for j [[, typename p$j##_type]] - - -]] - -// Initializes the value parameters. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_AND_$i[[]]_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]])\ - ($for j, [[p$j##_type gmock_p$j]])$if i>0 [[ : ]]$for j, [[p$j(gmock_p$j)]] - - -]] - -// Declares the fields for storing the value parameters. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_AND_$i[[]] -_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) $for j [[p$j##_type p$j; ]] - - -]] - -// Lists the value parameters. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_AND_$i[[]] -_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) $for j, [[p$j]] - - -]] - -// Lists the value parameter types. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_AND_$i[[]] -_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) $for j [[, p$j##_type]] - - -]] - -// Declares the value parameters. - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_AND_$i[[]]_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) [[]] -$for j, [[p$j##_type p$j]] - - -]] - -// The suffix of the class template implementing the action template. -$for i [[ - - -$range j 0..i-1 -#define GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_AND_$i[[]]_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]]) [[]] -$if i==1 [[P]] $elif i>=2 [[P$i]] -]] - - -// The name of the class template implementing the action template. -#define GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)\ - GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(name##Action, GMOCK_INTERNAL_COUNT_##value_params) - -$range k 0..n-1 - -#define ACTION_TEMPLATE(name, template_params, value_params)\ - template \ - class GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params) {\ - public:\ - explicit GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_##value_params {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - explicit gmock_Impl GMOCK_INTERNAL_INIT_##value_params {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template <$for k, [[typename arg$k[[]]_type]]>\ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args[[]] -$for k [[, arg$k[[]]_type arg$k]]) const;\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_##value_params\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(\ - new gmock_Impl(GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##value_params));\ - }\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DEFN_##value_params\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params));\ - };\ - template \ - inline GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params> name(\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_DECL_##value_params) {\ - return GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params>(\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##value_params);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - template \ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - GMOCK_ACTION_CLASS_(name, value_params)<\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_##template_params\ - GMOCK_INTERNAL_LIST_TYPE_##value_params>::gmock_Impl::\ - gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const - -$for i - -[[ -$var template = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ -$range j 0..i-1 - - template <$for j, [[typename p$j##_type]]>\ -]]]] -$var class_name = [[name##Action[[$if i==0 [[]] $elif i==1 [[P]] - $else [[P$i]]]]]] -$range j 0..i-1 -$var ctor_param_list = [[$for j, [[p$j##_type gmock_p$j]]]] -$var param_types_and_names = [[$for j, [[p$j##_type p$j]]]] -$var inits = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ : $for j, [[p$j(gmock_p$j)]]]]]] -$var param_field_decls = [[$for j -[[ - - p$j##_type p$j;\ -]]]] -$var param_field_decls2 = [[$for j -[[ - - p$j##_type p$j;\ -]]]] -$var params = [[$for j, [[p$j]]]] -$var param_types = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[<$for j, [[p$j##_type]]>]]]] -$var typename_arg_types = [[$for k, [[typename arg$k[[]]_type]]]] -$var arg_types_and_names = [[$for k, [[arg$k[[]]_type arg$k]]]] -$var macro_name = [[$if i==0 [[ACTION]] $elif i==1 [[ACTION_P]] - $else [[ACTION_P$i]]]] - -#define $macro_name(name$for j [[, p$j]])\$template - class $class_name {\ - public:\ - [[$if i==1 [[explicit ]]]]$class_name($ctor_param_list)$inits {}\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::ActionInterface {\ - public:\ - typedef F function_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result return_type;\ - typedef typename ::testing::internal::Function::ArgumentTuple\ - args_type;\ - [[$if i==1 [[explicit ]]]]gmock_Impl($ctor_param_list)$inits {}\ - virtual return_type Perform(const args_type& args) {\ - return ::testing::internal::ActionHelper::\ - Perform(this, args);\ - }\ - template <$typename_arg_types>\ - return_type gmock_PerformImpl(const args_type& args, [[]] -$arg_types_and_names) const;\$param_field_decls - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template operator ::testing::Action() const {\ - return ::testing::Action(new gmock_Impl($params));\ - }\$param_field_decls2 - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_($class_name);\ - };\$template - inline $class_name$param_types name($param_types_and_names) {\ - return $class_name$param_types($params);\ - }\$template - template \ - template <$typename_arg_types>\ - typename ::testing::internal::Function::Result\ - $class_name$param_types::gmock_Impl::gmock_PerformImpl(\ - GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_) const -]] -$$ } // This meta comment fixes auto-indentation in Emacs. It won't -$$ // show up in the generated code. - - -namespace testing { - - -// The ACTION*() macros trigger warning C4100 (unreferenced formal -// parameter) in MSVC with -W4. Unfortunately they cannot be fixed in -// the macro definition, as the warnings are generated when the macro -// is expanded and macro expansion cannot contain #pragma. Therefore -// we suppress them here. -#ifdef _MSC_VER -# pragma warning(push) -# pragma warning(disable:4100) -#endif - -// Various overloads for InvokeArgument(). -// -// The InvokeArgument(a1, a2, ..., a_k) action invokes the N-th -// (0-based) argument, which must be a k-ary callable, of the mock -// function, with arguments a1, a2, ..., a_k. -// -// Notes: -// -// 1. The arguments are passed by value by default. If you need to -// pass an argument by reference, wrap it inside ByRef(). For -// example, -// -// InvokeArgument<1>(5, string("Hello"), ByRef(foo)) -// -// passes 5 and string("Hello") by value, and passes foo by -// reference. -// -// 2. If the callable takes an argument by reference but ByRef() is -// not used, it will receive the reference to a copy of the value, -// instead of the original value. For example, when the 0-th -// argument of the mock function takes a const string&, the action -// -// InvokeArgument<0>(string("Hello")) -// -// makes a copy of the temporary string("Hello") object and passes a -// reference of the copy, instead of the original temporary object, -// to the callable. This makes it easy for a user to define an -// InvokeArgument action from temporary values and have it performed -// later. - -namespace internal { -namespace invoke_argument { - -// Appears in InvokeArgumentAdl's argument list to help avoid -// accidental calls to user functions of the same name. -struct AdlTag {}; - -// InvokeArgumentAdl - a helper for InvokeArgument. -// The basic overloads are provided here for generic functors. -// Overloads for other custom-callables are provided in the -// internal/custom/callback-actions.h header. - -$range i 0..n -$for i -[[ -$range j 1..i - -template -R InvokeArgumentAdl(AdlTag, F f[[$for j [[, A$j a$j]]]]) { - return f([[$for j, [[a$j]]]]); -} -]] - -} // namespace invoke_argument -} // namespace internal - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(InvokeArgument, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k), - AND_$i[[]]_VALUE_PARAMS($for j, [[p$j]])) { - using internal::invoke_argument::InvokeArgumentAdl; - return InvokeArgumentAdl( - internal::invoke_argument::AdlTag(), - ::testing::get(args)$for j [[, p$j]]); -} - -]] - -// Various overloads for ReturnNew(). -// -// The ReturnNew(a1, a2, ..., a_k) action returns a pointer to a new -// instance of type T, constructed on the heap with constructor arguments -// a1, a2, ..., and a_k. The caller assumes ownership of the returned value. -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -$var ps = [[$for j, [[p$j]]]] - -ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnNew, - HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(typename, T), - AND_$i[[]]_VALUE_PARAMS($ps)) { - return new T($ps); -} - -]] - -#ifdef _MSC_VER -# pragma warning(pop) -#endif - -} // namespace testing - -// Include any custom callback actions added by the local installation. -// We must include this header at the end to make sure it can use the -// declarations from this file. -#include "gmock/internal/custom/gmock-generated-actions.h" - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_ACTIONS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h deleted file mode 100644 index 4fa5ca9..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1095 +0,0 @@ -// This file was GENERATED by command: -// pump.py gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump -// DO NOT EDIT BY HAND!!! - -// Copyright 2007, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements function mockers of various arities. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h" - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ -# include -#endif - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -template -class FunctionMockerBase; - -// Note: class FunctionMocker really belongs to the ::testing -// namespace. However if we define it in ::testing, MSVC will -// complain when classes in ::testing::internal declare it as a -// friend class template. To workaround this compiler bug, we define -// FunctionMocker in ::testing::internal and import it into ::testing. -template -class FunctionMocker; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With() { - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke() { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple()); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5, - const Matcher& m6) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, - m6)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5, - const Matcher& m6, const Matcher& m7) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, - m6, m7)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5, - const Matcher& m6, const Matcher& m7, const Matcher& m8) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, - m6, m7, m8)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7, A8 a8) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5, - const Matcher& m6, const Matcher& m7, const Matcher& m8, - const Matcher& m9) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, - m6, m7, m8, m9)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7, A8 a8, A9 a9) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9)); - } -}; - -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With(const Matcher& m1, const Matcher& m2, - const Matcher& m3, const Matcher& m4, const Matcher& m5, - const Matcher& m6, const Matcher& m7, const Matcher& m8, - const Matcher& m9, const Matcher& m10) { - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, - m6, m7, m8, m9, m10)); - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke(A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7, A8 a8, A9 a9, - A10 a10) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, - a10)); - } -}; - -} // namespace internal - -// The style guide prohibits "using" statements in a namespace scope -// inside a header file. However, the FunctionMocker class template -// is meant to be defined in the ::testing namespace. The following -// line is just a trick for working around a bug in MSVC 8.0, which -// cannot handle it if we define FunctionMocker in ::testing. -using internal::FunctionMocker; - -// GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, F) expands to the result type of function type F. -// We define this as a variadic macro in case F contains unprotected -// commas (the same reason that we use variadic macros in other places -// in this file). -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, ...) \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::Result - -// The type of argument N of the given function type. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_ARG_(tn, N, ...) \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::Argument##N - -// The matcher type for argument N of the given function type. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, N, ...) \ - const ::testing::Matcher& - -// The variable for mocking the given method. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_MOCKER_(arity, constness, Method) \ - GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(gmock##constness##arity##_##Method##_, __LINE__) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD0_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - ) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 0), \ - this_method_does_not_take_0_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(0, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(0, constness, Method).Invoke(); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method() constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(0, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(0, constness, Method).With(); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(0, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD1_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 1), \ - this_method_does_not_take_1_argument); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(1, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(1, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(1, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(1, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(1, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD2_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 2), \ - this_method_does_not_take_2_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(2, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(2, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(2, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(2, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(2, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD3_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 3), \ - this_method_does_not_take_3_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(3, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(3, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(3, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(3, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(3, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD4_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 4), \ - this_method_does_not_take_4_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(4, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(4, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(4, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(4, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(4, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD5_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 5), \ - this_method_does_not_take_5_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(5, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(5, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(5, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(5, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(5, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD6_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 6), \ - this_method_does_not_take_6_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(6, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(6, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(6, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(6, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(6, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD7_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 7), \ - this_method_does_not_take_7_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(7, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(7, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(7, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(7, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(7, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD8_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 8), \ - this_method_does_not_take_8_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(8, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(8, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(8, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(8, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(8, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD9_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 9, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a9) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 9), \ - this_method_does_not_take_9_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(9, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(9, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8, \ - gmock_a9); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 9, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a9) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(9, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(9, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8, \ - gmock_a9); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(9, constness, \ - Method) - -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD10_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 9, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a9, \ - GMOCK_ARG_(tn, 10, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a10) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value \ - == 10), \ - this_method_does_not_take_10_arguments); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(10, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(10, constness, Method).Invoke(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8, gmock_a9, \ - gmock_a10); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method(GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 1, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a1, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 2, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a2, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 3, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a3, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 4, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a4, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 5, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a5, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 6, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a6, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 7, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a7, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 8, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a8, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 9, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a9, \ - GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, 10, \ - __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a10) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_(10, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_(10, constness, Method).With(gmock_a1, gmock_a2, \ - gmock_a3, gmock_a4, gmock_a5, gmock_a6, gmock_a7, gmock_a8, gmock_a9, \ - gmock_a10); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_(10, constness, \ - Method) - -#define MOCK_METHOD0(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD0_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD1(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD1_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD2(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD2_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD3(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD3_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD4(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD4_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD5(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD5_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD6(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD6_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD7(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD7_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD8(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD8_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD9(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD9_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD10(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD10_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD0_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD1_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD2_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD3_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD4_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD5_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD6_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD7_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD8_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD9_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD10_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_METHOD0_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD0_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD1_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD1_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD2_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD2_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD3_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD3_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD4_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD4_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD5_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD5_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD6_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD6_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD7_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD7_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD8_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD8_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD9_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD9_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD10_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD10_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD0_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD1_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD2_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD3_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD4_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD5_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD6_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD7_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD8_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD9_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD10_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD0_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD1_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD2_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD3_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD4_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD5_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD6_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD7_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD8_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD9_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD10_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD0_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD1_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD2_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD3_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD4_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD5_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD6_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD7_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD8_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD9_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD10_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_METHOD0_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD0_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD1_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD2_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD2_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD3_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD3_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD4_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD4_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD5_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD5_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD6_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD6_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD7_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD7_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD8_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD8_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD9_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD9_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_METHOD10_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD10_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD0_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD1_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD2_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD3_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD3_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD4_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD4_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD5_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD5_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD6_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD6_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD7_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD7_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD8_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD8_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD9_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD9_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD10_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD10_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -// A MockFunction class has one mock method whose type is F. It is -// useful when you just want your test code to emit some messages and -// have Google Mock verify the right messages are sent (and perhaps at -// the right times). For example, if you are exercising code: -// -// Foo(1); -// Foo(2); -// Foo(3); -// -// and want to verify that Foo(1) and Foo(3) both invoke -// mock.Bar("a"), but Foo(2) doesn't invoke anything, you can write: -// -// TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { -// MyMock mock; -// MockFunction check; -// { -// InSequence s; -// -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); -// EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); -// EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); -// } -// Foo(1); -// check.Call("1"); -// Foo(2); -// check.Call("2"); -// Foo(3); -// } -// -// The expectation spec says that the first Bar("a") must happen -// before check point "1", the second Bar("a") must happen after check -// point "2", and nothing should happen between the two check -// points. The explicit check points make it easy to tell which -// Bar("a") is called by which call to Foo(). -// -// MockFunction can also be used to exercise code that accepts -// std::function callbacks. To do so, use AsStdFunction() method -// to create std::function proxy forwarding to original object's Call. -// Example: -// -// TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) { -// MockFunction callback; -// EXPECT_CALL(callback, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1)); -// Foo(callback.AsStdFunction()); -// } -template -class MockFunction; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD0_T(Call, R()); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this]() -> R { - return this->Call(); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD1_T(Call, R(A0)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0) -> R { - return this->Call(a0); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD2_T(Call, R(A0, A1)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD3_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD4_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD5_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD6_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD7_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD8_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD9_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7, - A8 a8) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD10_T(Call, R(A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this](A0 a0, A1 a1, A2 a2, A3 a3, A4 a4, A5 a5, A6 a6, A7 a7, - A8 a8, A9 a9) -> R { - return this->Call(a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - -} // namespace testing - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump deleted file mode 100644 index 811502d..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h.pump +++ /dev/null @@ -1,291 +0,0 @@ -$$ -*- mode: c++; -*- -$$ This is a Pump source file. Please use Pump to convert it to -$$ gmock-generated-function-mockers.h. -$$ -$var n = 10 $$ The maximum arity we support. -// Copyright 2007, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements function mockers of various arities. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h" - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ -# include -#endif - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -template -class FunctionMockerBase; - -// Note: class FunctionMocker really belongs to the ::testing -// namespace. However if we define it in ::testing, MSVC will -// complain when classes in ::testing::internal declare it as a -// friend class template. To workaround this compiler bug, we define -// FunctionMocker in ::testing::internal and import it into ::testing. -template -class FunctionMocker; - - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -$var typename_As = [[$for j [[, typename A$j]]]] -$var As = [[$for j, [[A$j]]]] -$var as = [[$for j, [[a$j]]]] -$var Aas = [[$for j, [[A$j a$j]]]] -$var ms = [[$for j, [[m$j]]]] -$var matchers = [[$for j, [[const Matcher& m$j]]]] -template -class FunctionMocker : public - internal::FunctionMockerBase { - public: - typedef R F($As); - typedef typename internal::Function::ArgumentTuple ArgumentTuple; - - MockSpec& With($matchers) { - -$if i >= 1 [[ - this->current_spec().SetMatchers(::testing::make_tuple($ms)); - -]] - return this->current_spec(); - } - - R Invoke($Aas) { - // Even though gcc and MSVC don't enforce it, 'this->' is required - // by the C++ standard [14.6.4] here, as the base class type is - // dependent on the template argument (and thus shouldn't be - // looked into when resolving InvokeWith). - return this->InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple($as)); - } -}; - - -]] -} // namespace internal - -// The style guide prohibits "using" statements in a namespace scope -// inside a header file. However, the FunctionMocker class template -// is meant to be defined in the ::testing namespace. The following -// line is just a trick for working around a bug in MSVC 8.0, which -// cannot handle it if we define FunctionMocker in ::testing. -using internal::FunctionMocker; - -// GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, F) expands to the result type of function type F. -// We define this as a variadic macro in case F contains unprotected -// commas (the same reason that we use variadic macros in other places -// in this file). -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, ...) \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::Result - -// The type of argument N of the given function type. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_ARG_(tn, N, ...) \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::Argument##N - -// The matcher type for argument N of the given function type. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, N, ...) \ - const ::testing::Matcher& - -// The variable for mocking the given method. -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_MOCKER_(arity, constness, Method) \ - GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(gmock##constness##arity##_##Method##_, __LINE__) - - -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -$var arg_as = [[$for j, \ - [[GMOCK_ARG_(tn, $j, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a$j]]]] -$var as = [[$for j, [[gmock_a$j]]]] -$var matcher_as = [[$for j, \ - [[GMOCK_MATCHER_(tn, $j, __VA_ARGS__) gmock_a$j]]]] -// INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION - DON'T USE IN USER CODE!!! -#define GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(tn, constness, ct, Method, ...) \ - GMOCK_RESULT_(tn, __VA_ARGS__) ct Method( \ - $arg_as) constness { \ - GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_((::testing::tuple_size< \ - tn ::testing::internal::Function<__VA_ARGS__>::ArgumentTuple>::value == $i), \ - this_method_does_not_take_$i[[]]_argument[[$if i != 1 [[s]]]]); \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_($i, constness, Method).SetOwnerAndName(this, #Method); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_($i, constness, Method).Invoke($as); \ - } \ - ::testing::MockSpec<__VA_ARGS__>& \ - gmock_##Method($matcher_as) constness { \ - GMOCK_MOCKER_($i, constness, Method).RegisterOwner(this); \ - return GMOCK_MOCKER_($i, constness, Method).With($as); \ - } \ - mutable ::testing::FunctionMocker<__VA_ARGS__> GMOCK_MOCKER_($i, constness, Method) - - -]] -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_METHOD$i(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD$i(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_T(m, ...) GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(typename, , , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD$i[[]]_T(m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(typename, const, , m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD$i[[]]_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(typename, , ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - - -$for i [[ -#define MOCK_CONST_METHOD$i[[]]_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(ct, m, ...) \ - GMOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_(typename, const, ct, m, __VA_ARGS__) - -]] - -// A MockFunction class has one mock method whose type is F. It is -// useful when you just want your test code to emit some messages and -// have Google Mock verify the right messages are sent (and perhaps at -// the right times). For example, if you are exercising code: -// -// Foo(1); -// Foo(2); -// Foo(3); -// -// and want to verify that Foo(1) and Foo(3) both invoke -// mock.Bar("a"), but Foo(2) doesn't invoke anything, you can write: -// -// TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) { -// MyMock mock; -// MockFunction check; -// { -// InSequence s; -// -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); -// EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1")); -// EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2")); -// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a")); -// } -// Foo(1); -// check.Call("1"); -// Foo(2); -// check.Call("2"); -// Foo(3); -// } -// -// The expectation spec says that the first Bar("a") must happen -// before check point "1", the second Bar("a") must happen after check -// point "2", and nothing should happen between the two check -// points. The explicit check points make it easy to tell which -// Bar("a") is called by which call to Foo(). -// -// MockFunction can also be used to exercise code that accepts -// std::function callbacks. To do so, use AsStdFunction() method -// to create std::function proxy forwarding to original object's Call. -// Example: -// -// TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) { -// MockFunction callback; -// EXPECT_CALL(callback, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1)); -// Foo(callback.AsStdFunction()); -// } -template -class MockFunction; - - -$for i [[ -$range j 0..i-1 -$var ArgTypes = [[$for j, [[A$j]]]] -$var ArgNames = [[$for j, [[a$j]]]] -$var ArgDecls = [[$for j, [[A$j a$j]]]] -template -class MockFunction { - public: - MockFunction() {} - - MOCK_METHOD$i[[]]_T(Call, R($ArgTypes)); - -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - std::function AsStdFunction() { - return [this]($ArgDecls) -> R { - return this->Call($ArgNames); - }; - } -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STD_FUNCTION_ - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFunction); -}; - - -]] -} // namespace testing - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_FUNCTION_MOCKERS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h deleted file mode 100644 index 57056fd..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2179 +0,0 @@ -// This file was GENERATED by command: -// pump.py gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump -// DO NOT EDIT BY HAND!!! - -// Copyright 2008, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements some commonly used variadic matchers. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ - -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include "gmock/gmock-matchers.h" - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -// The type of the i-th (0-based) field of Tuple. -#define GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_(Tuple, i) \ - typename ::testing::tuple_element::type - -// TupleFields is for selecting fields from a -// tuple of type Tuple. It has two members: -// -// type: a tuple type whose i-th field is the ki-th field of Tuple. -// GetSelectedFields(t): returns fields k0, ..., and kn of t as a tuple. -// -// For example, in class TupleFields, 2, 0>, we have: -// -// type is tuple, and -// GetSelectedFields(make_tuple(true, 'a', 42)) is (42, true). - -template -class TupleFields; - -// This generic version is used when there are 10 selectors. -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), - get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -// The following specialization is used for 0 ~ 9 selectors. - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple<> type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& /* t */) { - return type(); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), - get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), - get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), - get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type(get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t), - get(t), get(t), get(t), get(t)); - } -}; - -#undef GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_ - -// Implements the Args() matcher. -template -class ArgsMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface { - public: - // ArgsTuple may have top-level const or reference modifiers. - typedef GTEST_REMOVE_REFERENCE_AND_CONST_(ArgsTuple) RawArgsTuple; - typedef typename internal::TupleFields::type SelectedArgs; - typedef Matcher MonomorphicInnerMatcher; - - template - explicit ArgsMatcherImpl(const InnerMatcher& inner_matcher) - : inner_matcher_(SafeMatcherCast(inner_matcher)) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(ArgsTuple args, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const SelectedArgs& selected_args = GetSelectedArgs(args); - if (!listener->IsInterested()) - return inner_matcher_.Matches(selected_args); - - PrintIndices(listener->stream()); - *listener << "are " << PrintToString(selected_args); - - StringMatchResultListener inner_listener; - const bool match = inner_matcher_.MatchAndExplain(selected_args, - &inner_listener); - PrintIfNotEmpty(inner_listener.str(), listener->stream()); - return match; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "are a tuple "; - PrintIndices(os); - inner_matcher_.DescribeTo(os); - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "are a tuple "; - PrintIndices(os); - inner_matcher_.DescribeNegationTo(os); - } - - private: - static SelectedArgs GetSelectedArgs(ArgsTuple args) { - return TupleFields::GetSelectedFields(args); - } - - // Prints the indices of the selected fields. - static void PrintIndices(::std::ostream* os) { - *os << "whose fields ("; - const int indices[10] = { k0, k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, k6, k7, k8, k9 }; - for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { - if (indices[i] < 0) - break; - - if (i >= 1) - *os << ", "; - - *os << "#" << indices[i]; - } - *os << ") "; - } - - const MonomorphicInnerMatcher inner_matcher_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ArgsMatcherImpl); -}; - -template -class ArgsMatcher { - public: - explicit ArgsMatcher(const InnerMatcher& inner_matcher) - : inner_matcher_(inner_matcher) {} - - template - operator Matcher() const { - return MakeMatcher(new ArgsMatcherImpl(inner_matcher_)); - } - - private: - const InnerMatcher inner_matcher_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ArgsMatcher); -}; - -// A set of metafunctions for computing the result type of AllOf. -// AllOf(m1, ..., mN) returns -// AllOfResultN::type. - -// Although AllOf isn't defined for one argument, AllOfResult1 is defined -// to simplify the implementation. -template -struct AllOfResult1 { - typedef M1 type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult2 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult1::type, - typename AllOfResult1::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult3 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult1::type, - typename AllOfResult2::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult4 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult2::type, - typename AllOfResult2::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult5 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult2::type, - typename AllOfResult3::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult6 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult3::type, - typename AllOfResult3::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult7 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult3::type, - typename AllOfResult4::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult8 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult4::type, - typename AllOfResult4::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult9 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult4::type, - typename AllOfResult5::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AllOfResult10 { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult5::type, - typename AllOfResult5::type - > type; -}; - -// A set of metafunctions for computing the result type of AnyOf. -// AnyOf(m1, ..., mN) returns -// AnyOfResultN::type. - -// Although AnyOf isn't defined for one argument, AnyOfResult1 is defined -// to simplify the implementation. -template -struct AnyOfResult1 { - typedef M1 type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult2 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult1::type, - typename AnyOfResult1::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult3 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult1::type, - typename AnyOfResult2::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult4 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult2::type, - typename AnyOfResult2::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult5 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult2::type, - typename AnyOfResult3::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult6 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult3::type, - typename AnyOfResult3::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult7 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult3::type, - typename AnyOfResult4::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult8 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult4::type, - typename AnyOfResult4::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult9 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult4::type, - typename AnyOfResult5::type - > type; -}; - -template -struct AnyOfResult10 { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult5::type, - typename AnyOfResult5::type - > type; -}; - -} // namespace internal - -// Args(a_matcher) matches a tuple if the selected -// fields of it matches a_matcher. C++ doesn't support default -// arguments for function templates, so we have to overload it. -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -template -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - -// ElementsAre(e_1, e_2, ... e_n) matches an STL-style container with -// n elements, where the i-th element in the container must -// match the i-th argument in the list. Each argument of -// ElementsAre() can be either a value or a matcher. We support up to -// 10 arguments. -// -// The use of DecayArray in the implementation allows ElementsAre() -// to accept string literals, whose type is const char[N], but we -// want to treat them as const char*. -// -// NOTE: Since ElementsAre() cares about the order of the elements, it -// must not be used with containers whose elements's order is -// undefined (e.g. hash_map). - -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple<> > -ElementsAre() { - typedef ::testing::tuple<> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args()); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7, - e8)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8, const T9& e9) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7, - e8, e9)); -} - -template -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -ElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8, const T9& e9, - const T10& e10) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7, - e8, e9, e10)); -} - -// UnorderedElementsAre(e_1, e_2, ..., e_n) is an ElementsAre extension -// that matches n elements in any order. We support up to n=10 arguments. - -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple<> > -UnorderedElementsAre() { - typedef ::testing::tuple<> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args()); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, - e6)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, - e6, e7)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, - e6, e7, e8)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8, const T9& e9) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, - e6, e7, e8, e9)); -} - -template -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> > -UnorderedElementsAre(const T1& e1, const T2& e2, const T3& e3, const T4& e4, - const T5& e5, const T6& e6, const T7& e7, const T8& e8, const T9& e9, - const T10& e10) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type, - typename internal::DecayArray::type> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args(e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, - e6, e7, e8, e9, e10)); -} - -// AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mk) matches any value that matches all of the given -// sub-matchers. AllOf is called fully qualified to prevent ADL from firing. - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult2::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult2::type( - m1, - m2); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult3::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult3::type( - m1, - ::testing::AllOf(m2, m3)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult4::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult4::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2), - ::testing::AllOf(m3, m4)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult5::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult5::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2), - ::testing::AllOf(m3, m4, m5)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult6::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult6::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2, m3), - ::testing::AllOf(m4, m5, m6)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult7::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult7::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2, m3), - ::testing::AllOf(m4, m5, m6, m7)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult8::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult8::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2, m3, m4), - ::testing::AllOf(m5, m6, m7, m8)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult9::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8, M9 m9) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult9::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2, m3, m4), - ::testing::AllOf(m5, m6, m7, m8, m9)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AllOfResult10::type -AllOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8, M9 m9, M10 m10) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult10::type( - ::testing::AllOf(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5), - ::testing::AllOf(m6, m7, m8, m9, m10)); -} - -// AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mk) matches any value that matches any of the given -// sub-matchers. AnyOf is called fully qualified to prevent ADL from firing. - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult2::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult2::type( - m1, - m2); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult3::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult3::type( - m1, - ::testing::AnyOf(m2, m3)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult4::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult4::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2), - ::testing::AnyOf(m3, m4)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult5::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult5::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2), - ::testing::AnyOf(m3, m4, m5)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult6::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult6::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2, m3), - ::testing::AnyOf(m4, m5, m6)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult7::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult7::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2, m3), - ::testing::AnyOf(m4, m5, m6, m7)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult8::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult8::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2, m3, m4), - ::testing::AnyOf(m5, m6, m7, m8)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult9::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8, M9 m9) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult9::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2, m3, m4), - ::testing::AnyOf(m5, m6, m7, m8, m9)); -} - -template -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult10::type -AnyOf(M1 m1, M2 m2, M3 m3, M4 m4, M5 m5, M6 m6, M7 m7, M8 m8, M9 m9, M10 m10) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult10::type( - ::testing::AnyOf(m1, m2, m3, m4, m5), - ::testing::AnyOf(m6, m7, m8, m9, m10)); -} - -} // namespace testing - - -// The MATCHER* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to -// define custom matchers easily. -// -// Basic Usage -// =========== -// -// The syntax -// -// MATCHER(name, description_string) { statements; } -// -// defines a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, -// which must return a bool to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside -// the statements, you can refer to the value being matched by 'arg', -// and refer to its type by 'arg_type'. -// -// The description string documents what the matcher does, and is used -// to generate the failure message when the match fails. Since a -// MATCHER() is usually defined in a header file shared by multiple -// C++ source files, we require the description to be a C-string -// literal to avoid possible side effects. It can be empty, in which -// case we'll use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the -// description. -// -// For example: -// -// MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; } -// -// allows you to write -// -// // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is even. -// EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsEven())); -// -// or, -// -// // Verifies that the value of some_expression is even. -// EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsEven()); -// -// If the above assertion fails, it will print something like: -// -// Value of: some_expression -// Expected: is even -// Actual: 7 -// -// where the description "is even" is automatically calculated from the -// matcher name IsEven. -// -// Argument Type -// ============= -// -// Note that the type of the value being matched (arg_type) is -// determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is -// supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about -// declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be -// polymorphic. For example, IsEven() can be used to match any type -// where the value of "(arg % 2) == 0" can be implicitly converted to -// a bool. In the "Bar(IsEven())" example above, if method Bar() -// takes an int, 'arg_type' will be int; if it takes an unsigned long, -// 'arg_type' will be unsigned long; and so on. -// -// Parameterizing Matchers -// ======================= -// -// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the matcher. For that you -// can use another macro: -// -// MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } -// -// For example: -// -// MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -// -// will allow you to write: -// -// EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -// -// which may lead to this message (assuming n is 10): -// -// Value of: Blah("a") -// Expected: has absolute value 10 -// Actual: -9 -// -// Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -// printed, making the message human-friendly. -// -// In the matcher definition body, you can write 'foo_type' to -// reference the type of a parameter named 'foo'. For example, in the -// body of MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value) above, you can write -// 'value_type' to refer to the type of 'value'. -// -// We also provide MATCHER_P2, MATCHER_P3, ..., up to MATCHER_P10 to -// support multi-parameter matchers. -// -// Describing Parameterized Matchers -// ================================= -// -// The last argument to MATCHER*() is a string-typed expression. The -// expression can reference all of the matcher's parameters and a -// special bool-typed variable named 'negation'. When 'negation' is -// false, the expression should evaluate to the matcher's description; -// otherwise it should evaluate to the description of the negation of -// the matcher. For example, -// -// using testing::PrintToString; -// -// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, -// string(negation ? "is not" : "is") + " in range [" + -// PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { -// return low <= arg && arg <= hi; -// } -// ... -// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); -// -// would generate two failures that contain the text: -// -// Expected: is in range [4, 6] -// ... -// Expected: is not in range [2, 4] -// -// If you specify "" as the description, the failure message will -// contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -// parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -// -// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } -// ... -// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); -// -// would generate two failures that contain the text: -// -// Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -// ... -// Expected: not (in closed range (2, 4)) -// -// Types of Matcher Parameters -// =========================== -// -// For the purpose of typing, you can view -// -// MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } -// -// as shorthand for -// -// template -// FooMatcherPk -// Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -// -// When you write Foo(v1, ..., vk), the compiler infers the types of -// the parameters v1, ..., and vk for you. If you are not happy with -// the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -// explicitly instantiating the template, as in Foo(5, -// false). As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -// 'arg_type' as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -// is used. You can assign the result of expression Foo(p1, ..., pk) -// to a variable of type FooMatcherPk. This -// can be useful when composing matchers. -// -// While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -// passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -// readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -// reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -// matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -// address. -// -// Explaining Match Results -// ======================== -// -// Sometimes the matcher description alone isn't enough to explain why -// the match has failed or succeeded. For example, when expecting a -// long string, it can be very helpful to also print the diff between -// the expected string and the actual one. To achieve that, you can -// optionally stream additional information to a special variable -// named result_listener, whose type is a pointer to class -// MatchResultListener: -// -// MATCHER_P(EqualsLongString, str, "") { -// if (arg == str) return true; -// -// *result_listener << "the difference: " -/// << DiffStrings(str, arg); -// return false; -// } -// -// Overloading Matchers -// ==================== -// -// You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -// -// MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string1) { ... } -// MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string2) { ... } -// -// Caveats -// ======= -// -// When defining a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -// MatcherInterface or using MakePolymorphicMatcher(). These -// approaches require more work than the MATCHER* macros, but also -// give you more control on the types of the value being matched and -// the matcher parameters, which may leads to better compiler error -// messages when the matcher is used wrong. They also allow -// overloading matchers based on parameter types (as opposed to just -// based on the number of parameters). -// -// MATCHER*() can only be used in a namespace scope. The reason is -// that C++ doesn't yet allow function-local types to be used to -// instantiate templates. The up-coming C++0x standard will fix this. -// Once that's done, we'll consider supporting using MATCHER*() inside -// a function. -// -// More Information -// ================ -// -// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'MATCHER' -// on http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook. - -#define MATCHER(name, description)\ - class name##Matcher {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl()\ - {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple<>()));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl());\ - }\ - name##Matcher() {\ - }\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##Matcher);\ - };\ - inline name##Matcher name() {\ - return name##Matcher();\ - }\ - template \ - bool name##Matcher::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P(name, p0, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - explicit gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0)\ - : p0(gmock_p0) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0));\ - }\ - explicit name##MatcherP(p0##_type gmock_p0) : p0(gmock_p0) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP name(p0##_type p0) {\ - return name##MatcherP(p0);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P2(name, p0, p1, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP2 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP2(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1) : p0(gmock_p0), \ - p1(gmock_p1) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP2);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP2 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1) {\ - return name##MatcherP2(p0, p1);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP2::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P3(name, p0, p1, p2, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP3 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, \ - p2)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP3(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP3);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP3 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2) {\ - return name##MatcherP3(p0, p1, p2);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP3::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P4(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP4 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP4(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP4);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP4 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, \ - p3##_type p3) {\ - return name##MatcherP4(p0, \ - p1, p2, p3);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP4::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P5(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP5 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP5(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, \ - p4##_type gmock_p4) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP5);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP5 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4) {\ - return name##MatcherP5(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP5::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P6(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP6 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP6(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP6);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP6 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, \ - p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5) {\ - return name##MatcherP6(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP6::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P7(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP7 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP7(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), \ - p6(gmock_p6) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP7);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP7 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, \ - p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, \ - p6##_type p6) {\ - return name##MatcherP7(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP7::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P8(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP8 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, \ - p3, p4, p5, p6, p7)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP8(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, \ - p7##_type gmock_p7) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP8);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP8 name(p0##_type p0, \ - p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, \ - p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7) {\ - return name##MatcherP8(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, \ - p6, p7);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP8::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P9(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP9 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, p8##_type gmock_p8)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP9(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), \ - p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP9);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP9 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, \ - p8##_type p8) {\ - return name##MatcherP9(p0, p1, p2, \ - p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP9::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#define MATCHER_P10(name, p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, description)\ - template \ - class name##MatcherP10 {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - gmock_Impl(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, p2##_type gmock_p2, \ - p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, p5##_type gmock_p5, \ - p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, p8##_type gmock_p8, \ - p9##_type gmock_p9)\ - : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), \ - p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), p7(gmock_p7), \ - p8(gmock_p8), p9(gmock_p9) {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - p9##_type p9;\ - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9)));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl(p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9));\ - }\ - name##MatcherP10(p0##_type gmock_p0, p1##_type gmock_p1, \ - p2##_type gmock_p2, p3##_type gmock_p3, p4##_type gmock_p4, \ - p5##_type gmock_p5, p6##_type gmock_p6, p7##_type gmock_p7, \ - p8##_type gmock_p8, p9##_type gmock_p9) : p0(gmock_p0), p1(gmock_p1), \ - p2(gmock_p2), p3(gmock_p3), p4(gmock_p4), p5(gmock_p5), p6(gmock_p6), \ - p7(gmock_p7), p8(gmock_p8), p9(gmock_p9) {\ - }\ - p0##_type p0;\ - p1##_type p1;\ - p2##_type p2;\ - p3##_type p3;\ - p4##_type p4;\ - p5##_type p5;\ - p6##_type p6;\ - p7##_type p7;\ - p8##_type p8;\ - p9##_type p9;\ - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(name##MatcherP10);\ - };\ - template \ - inline name##MatcherP10 name(p0##_type p0, p1##_type p1, p2##_type p2, p3##_type p3, \ - p4##_type p4, p5##_type p5, p6##_type p6, p7##_type p7, p8##_type p8, \ - p9##_type p9) {\ - return name##MatcherP10(p0, \ - p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9);\ - }\ - template \ - template \ - bool name##MatcherP10::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump deleted file mode 100644 index de30c2c..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump +++ /dev/null @@ -1,672 +0,0 @@ -$$ -*- mode: c++; -*- -$$ This is a Pump source file. Please use Pump to convert it to -$$ gmock-generated-actions.h. -$$ -$var n = 10 $$ The maximum arity we support. -$$ }} This line fixes auto-indentation of the following code in Emacs. -// Copyright 2008, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. - -// Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. -// -// This file implements some commonly used variadic matchers. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ - -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include "gmock/gmock-matchers.h" - -namespace testing { -namespace internal { - -$range i 0..n-1 - -// The type of the i-th (0-based) field of Tuple. -#define GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_(Tuple, i) \ - typename ::testing::tuple_element::type - -// TupleFields is for selecting fields from a -// tuple of type Tuple. It has two members: -// -// type: a tuple type whose i-th field is the ki-th field of Tuple. -// GetSelectedFields(t): returns fields k0, ..., and kn of t as a tuple. -// -// For example, in class TupleFields, 2, 0>, we have: -// -// type is tuple, and -// GetSelectedFields(make_tuple(true, 'a', 42)) is (42, true). - -template -class TupleFields; - -// This generic version is used when there are $n selectors. -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple<$for i, [[GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_(Tuple, k$i)]]> type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& t) { - return type($for i, [[get(t)]]); - } -}; - -// The following specialization is used for 0 ~ $(n-1) selectors. - -$for i [[ -$$ }}} -$range j 0..i-1 -$range k 0..n-1 - -template -class TupleFields { - public: - typedef ::testing::tuple<$for j, [[GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_(Tuple, k$j)]]> type; - static type GetSelectedFields(const Tuple& $if i==0 [[/* t */]] $else [[t]]) { - return type($for j, [[get(t)]]); - } -}; - -]] - -#undef GMOCK_FIELD_TYPE_ - -// Implements the Args() matcher. - -$var ks = [[$for i, [[k$i]]]] -template -class ArgsMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface { - public: - // ArgsTuple may have top-level const or reference modifiers. - typedef GTEST_REMOVE_REFERENCE_AND_CONST_(ArgsTuple) RawArgsTuple; - typedef typename internal::TupleFields::type SelectedArgs; - typedef Matcher MonomorphicInnerMatcher; - - template - explicit ArgsMatcherImpl(const InnerMatcher& inner_matcher) - : inner_matcher_(SafeMatcherCast(inner_matcher)) {} - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(ArgsTuple args, - MatchResultListener* listener) const { - const SelectedArgs& selected_args = GetSelectedArgs(args); - if (!listener->IsInterested()) - return inner_matcher_.Matches(selected_args); - - PrintIndices(listener->stream()); - *listener << "are " << PrintToString(selected_args); - - StringMatchResultListener inner_listener; - const bool match = inner_matcher_.MatchAndExplain(selected_args, - &inner_listener); - PrintIfNotEmpty(inner_listener.str(), listener->stream()); - return match; - } - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "are a tuple "; - PrintIndices(os); - inner_matcher_.DescribeTo(os); - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "are a tuple "; - PrintIndices(os); - inner_matcher_.DescribeNegationTo(os); - } - - private: - static SelectedArgs GetSelectedArgs(ArgsTuple args) { - return TupleFields::GetSelectedFields(args); - } - - // Prints the indices of the selected fields. - static void PrintIndices(::std::ostream* os) { - *os << "whose fields ("; - const int indices[$n] = { $ks }; - for (int i = 0; i < $n; i++) { - if (indices[i] < 0) - break; - - if (i >= 1) - *os << ", "; - - *os << "#" << indices[i]; - } - *os << ") "; - } - - const MonomorphicInnerMatcher inner_matcher_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ArgsMatcherImpl); -}; - -template -class ArgsMatcher { - public: - explicit ArgsMatcher(const InnerMatcher& inner_matcher) - : inner_matcher_(inner_matcher) {} - - template - operator Matcher() const { - return MakeMatcher(new ArgsMatcherImpl(inner_matcher_)); - } - - private: - const InnerMatcher inner_matcher_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(ArgsMatcher); -}; - -// A set of metafunctions for computing the result type of AllOf. -// AllOf(m1, ..., mN) returns -// AllOfResultN::type. - -// Although AllOf isn't defined for one argument, AllOfResult1 is defined -// to simplify the implementation. -template -struct AllOfResult1 { - typedef M1 type; -}; - -$range i 1..n - -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 2..i -$var m = i/2 -$range k 1..m -$range t m+1..i - -template -struct AllOfResult$i { - typedef BothOfMatcher< - typename AllOfResult$m<$for k, [[M$k]]>::type, - typename AllOfResult$(i-m)<$for t, [[M$t]]>::type - > type; -}; - -]] - -// A set of metafunctions for computing the result type of AnyOf. -// AnyOf(m1, ..., mN) returns -// AnyOfResultN::type. - -// Although AnyOf isn't defined for one argument, AnyOfResult1 is defined -// to simplify the implementation. -template -struct AnyOfResult1 { - typedef M1 type; -}; - -$range i 1..n - -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 2..i -$var m = i/2 -$range k 1..m -$range t m+1..i - -template -struct AnyOfResult$i { - typedef EitherOfMatcher< - typename AnyOfResult$m<$for k, [[M$k]]>::type, - typename AnyOfResult$(i-m)<$for t, [[M$t]]>::type - > type; -}; - -]] - -} // namespace internal - -// Args(a_matcher) matches a tuple if the selected -// fields of it matches a_matcher. C++ doesn't support default -// arguments for function templates, so we have to overload it. - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -template <$for j [[int k$j, ]]typename InnerMatcher> -inline internal::ArgsMatcher -Args(const InnerMatcher& matcher) { - return internal::ArgsMatcher(matcher); -} - - -]] -// ElementsAre(e_1, e_2, ... e_n) matches an STL-style container with -// n elements, where the i-th element in the container must -// match the i-th argument in the list. Each argument of -// ElementsAre() can be either a value or a matcher. We support up to -// $n arguments. -// -// The use of DecayArray in the implementation allows ElementsAre() -// to accept string literals, whose type is const char[N], but we -// want to treat them as const char*. -// -// NOTE: Since ElementsAre() cares about the order of the elements, it -// must not be used with containers whose elements's order is -// undefined (e.g. hash_map). - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ - -$range j 1..i - -$if i>0 [[ - -template <$for j, [[typename T$j]]> -]] - -inline internal::ElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< -$for j, [[ - - typename internal::DecayArray::type]]> > -ElementsAre($for j, [[const T$j& e$j]]) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< -$for j, [[ - - typename internal::DecayArray::type]]> Args; - return internal::ElementsAreMatcher(Args($for j, [[e$j]])); -} - -]] - -// UnorderedElementsAre(e_1, e_2, ..., e_n) is an ElementsAre extension -// that matches n elements in any order. We support up to n=$n arguments. - -$range i 0..n -$for i [[ - -$range j 1..i - -$if i>0 [[ - -template <$for j, [[typename T$j]]> -]] - -inline internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher< - ::testing::tuple< -$for j, [[ - - typename internal::DecayArray::type]]> > -UnorderedElementsAre($for j, [[const T$j& e$j]]) { - typedef ::testing::tuple< -$for j, [[ - - typename internal::DecayArray::type]]> Args; - return internal::UnorderedElementsAreMatcher(Args($for j, [[e$j]])); -} - -]] - -// AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mk) matches any value that matches all of the given -// sub-matchers. AllOf is called fully qualified to prevent ADL from firing. - -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -$var m = i/2 -$range k 1..m -$range t m+1..i - -template <$for j, [[typename M$j]]> -inline typename internal::AllOfResult$i<$for j, [[M$j]]>::type -AllOf($for j, [[M$j m$j]]) { - return typename internal::AllOfResult$i<$for j, [[M$j]]>::type( - $if m == 1 [[m1]] $else [[::testing::AllOf($for k, [[m$k]])]], - $if m+1 == i [[m$i]] $else [[::testing::AllOf($for t, [[m$t]])]]); -} - -]] - -// AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mk) matches any value that matches any of the given -// sub-matchers. AnyOf is called fully qualified to prevent ADL from firing. - -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i -$var m = i/2 -$range k 1..m -$range t m+1..i - -template <$for j, [[typename M$j]]> -inline typename internal::AnyOfResult$i<$for j, [[M$j]]>::type -AnyOf($for j, [[M$j m$j]]) { - return typename internal::AnyOfResult$i<$for j, [[M$j]]>::type( - $if m == 1 [[m1]] $else [[::testing::AnyOf($for k, [[m$k]])]], - $if m+1 == i [[m$i]] $else [[::testing::AnyOf($for t, [[m$t]])]]); -} - -]] - -} // namespace testing -$$ } // This Pump meta comment fixes auto-indentation in Emacs. It will not -$$ // show up in the generated code. - - -// The MATCHER* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to -// define custom matchers easily. -// -// Basic Usage -// =========== -// -// The syntax -// -// MATCHER(name, description_string) { statements; } -// -// defines a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, -// which must return a bool to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside -// the statements, you can refer to the value being matched by 'arg', -// and refer to its type by 'arg_type'. -// -// The description string documents what the matcher does, and is used -// to generate the failure message when the match fails. Since a -// MATCHER() is usually defined in a header file shared by multiple -// C++ source files, we require the description to be a C-string -// literal to avoid possible side effects. It can be empty, in which -// case we'll use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the -// description. -// -// For example: -// -// MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; } -// -// allows you to write -// -// // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is even. -// EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsEven())); -// -// or, -// -// // Verifies that the value of some_expression is even. -// EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsEven()); -// -// If the above assertion fails, it will print something like: -// -// Value of: some_expression -// Expected: is even -// Actual: 7 -// -// where the description "is even" is automatically calculated from the -// matcher name IsEven. -// -// Argument Type -// ============= -// -// Note that the type of the value being matched (arg_type) is -// determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is -// supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about -// declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be -// polymorphic. For example, IsEven() can be used to match any type -// where the value of "(arg % 2) == 0" can be implicitly converted to -// a bool. In the "Bar(IsEven())" example above, if method Bar() -// takes an int, 'arg_type' will be int; if it takes an unsigned long, -// 'arg_type' will be unsigned long; and so on. -// -// Parameterizing Matchers -// ======================= -// -// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the matcher. For that you -// can use another macro: -// -// MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } -// -// For example: -// -// MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } -// -// will allow you to write: -// -// EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); -// -// which may lead to this message (assuming n is 10): -// -// Value of: Blah("a") -// Expected: has absolute value 10 -// Actual: -9 -// -// Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are -// printed, making the message human-friendly. -// -// In the matcher definition body, you can write 'foo_type' to -// reference the type of a parameter named 'foo'. For example, in the -// body of MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value) above, you can write -// 'value_type' to refer to the type of 'value'. -// -// We also provide MATCHER_P2, MATCHER_P3, ..., up to MATCHER_P$n to -// support multi-parameter matchers. -// -// Describing Parameterized Matchers -// ================================= -// -// The last argument to MATCHER*() is a string-typed expression. The -// expression can reference all of the matcher's parameters and a -// special bool-typed variable named 'negation'. When 'negation' is -// false, the expression should evaluate to the matcher's description; -// otherwise it should evaluate to the description of the negation of -// the matcher. For example, -// -// using testing::PrintToString; -// -// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, -// string(negation ? "is not" : "is") + " in range [" + -// PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { -// return low <= arg && arg <= hi; -// } -// ... -// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); -// -// would generate two failures that contain the text: -// -// Expected: is in range [4, 6] -// ... -// Expected: is not in range [2, 4] -// -// If you specify "" as the description, the failure message will -// contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the -// parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, -// -// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } -// ... -// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); -// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); -// -// would generate two failures that contain the text: -// -// Expected: in closed range (4, 6) -// ... -// Expected: not (in closed range (2, 4)) -// -// Types of Matcher Parameters -// =========================== -// -// For the purpose of typing, you can view -// -// MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } -// -// as shorthand for -// -// template -// FooMatcherPk -// Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } -// -// When you write Foo(v1, ..., vk), the compiler infers the types of -// the parameters v1, ..., and vk for you. If you are not happy with -// the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by -// explicitly instantiating the template, as in Foo(5, -// false). As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify -// 'arg_type' as that's determined by the context in which the matcher -// is used. You can assign the result of expression Foo(p1, ..., pk) -// to a variable of type FooMatcherPk. This -// can be useful when composing matchers. -// -// While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, -// passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more -// readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by -// reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the -// matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its -// address. -// -// Explaining Match Results -// ======================== -// -// Sometimes the matcher description alone isn't enough to explain why -// the match has failed or succeeded. For example, when expecting a -// long string, it can be very helpful to also print the diff between -// the expected string and the actual one. To achieve that, you can -// optionally stream additional information to a special variable -// named result_listener, whose type is a pointer to class -// MatchResultListener: -// -// MATCHER_P(EqualsLongString, str, "") { -// if (arg == str) return true; -// -// *result_listener << "the difference: " -/// << DiffStrings(str, arg); -// return false; -// } -// -// Overloading Matchers -// ==================== -// -// You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: -// -// MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string1) { ... } -// MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string2) { ... } -// -// Caveats -// ======= -// -// When defining a new matcher, you should also consider implementing -// MatcherInterface or using MakePolymorphicMatcher(). These -// approaches require more work than the MATCHER* macros, but also -// give you more control on the types of the value being matched and -// the matcher parameters, which may leads to better compiler error -// messages when the matcher is used wrong. They also allow -// overloading matchers based on parameter types (as opposed to just -// based on the number of parameters). -// -// MATCHER*() can only be used in a namespace scope. The reason is -// that C++ doesn't yet allow function-local types to be used to -// instantiate templates. The up-coming C++0x standard will fix this. -// Once that's done, we'll consider supporting using MATCHER*() inside -// a function. -// -// More Information -// ================ -// -// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'MATCHER' -// on http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook. - -$range i 0..n -$for i - -[[ -$var macro_name = [[$if i==0 [[MATCHER]] $elif i==1 [[MATCHER_P]] - $else [[MATCHER_P$i]]]] -$var class_name = [[name##Matcher[[$if i==0 [[]] $elif i==1 [[P]] - $else [[P$i]]]]]] -$range j 0..i-1 -$var template = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ - - template <$for j, [[typename p$j##_type]]>\ -]]]] -$var ctor_param_list = [[$for j, [[p$j##_type gmock_p$j]]]] -$var impl_ctor_param_list = [[$for j, [[p$j##_type gmock_p$j]]]] -$var impl_inits = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ : $for j, [[p$j(gmock_p$j)]]]]]] -$var inits = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[ : $for j, [[p$j(gmock_p$j)]]]]]] -$var params = [[$for j, [[p$j]]]] -$var param_types = [[$if i==0 [[]] $else [[<$for j, [[p$j##_type]]>]]]] -$var param_types_and_names = [[$for j, [[p$j##_type p$j]]]] -$var param_field_decls = [[$for j -[[ - - p$j##_type p$j;\ -]]]] -$var param_field_decls2 = [[$for j -[[ - - p$j##_type p$j;\ -]]]] - -#define $macro_name(name$for j [[, p$j]], description)\$template - class $class_name {\ - public:\ - template \ - class gmock_Impl : public ::testing::MatcherInterface {\ - public:\ - [[$if i==1 [[explicit ]]]]gmock_Impl($impl_ctor_param_list)\ - $impl_inits {}\ - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener) const;\ - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(false);\ - }\ - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* gmock_os) const {\ - *gmock_os << FormatDescription(true);\ - }\$param_field_decls - private:\ - ::testing::internal::string FormatDescription(bool negation) const {\ - const ::testing::internal::string gmock_description = (description);\ - if (!gmock_description.empty())\ - return gmock_description;\ - return ::testing::internal::FormatMatcherDescription(\ - negation, #name, \ - ::testing::internal::UniversalTersePrintTupleFieldsToStrings(\ - ::testing::tuple<$for j, [[p$j##_type]]>($for j, [[p$j]])));\ - }\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(gmock_Impl);\ - };\ - template \ - operator ::testing::Matcher() const {\ - return ::testing::Matcher(\ - new gmock_Impl($params));\ - }\ - [[$if i==1 [[explicit ]]]]$class_name($ctor_param_list)$inits {\ - }\$param_field_decls2 - private:\ - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_($class_name);\ - };\$template - inline $class_name$param_types name($param_types_and_names) {\ - return $class_name$param_types($params);\ - }\$template - template \ - bool $class_name$param_types::gmock_Impl::MatchAndExplain(\ - arg_type arg, \ - ::testing::MatchResultListener* result_listener GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_)\ - const -]] - - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_MATCHERS_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h deleted file mode 100644 index 4095f4d..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h +++ /dev/null @@ -1,397 +0,0 @@ -// This file was GENERATED by command: -// pump.py gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump -// DO NOT EDIT BY HAND!!! - -// Copyright 2008, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Implements class templates NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock. -// -// Given a mock class MockFoo that is created using Google Mock, -// NiceMock is a subclass of MockFoo that allows -// uninteresting calls (i.e. calls to mock methods that have no -// EXPECT_CALL specs), NaggyMock is a subclass of MockFoo -// that prints a warning when an uninteresting call occurs, and -// StrictMock is a subclass of MockFoo that treats all -// uninteresting calls as errors. -// -// Currently a mock is naggy by default, so MockFoo and -// NaggyMock behave like the same. However, we will soon -// switch the default behavior of mocks to be nice, as that in general -// leads to more maintainable tests. When that happens, MockFoo will -// stop behaving like NaggyMock and start behaving like -// NiceMock. -// -// NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock "inherit" the constructors of -// their respective base class, with up-to 10 arguments. Therefore -// you can write NiceMock(5, "a") to construct a nice mock -// where MockFoo has a constructor that accepts (int, const char*), -// for example. -// -// A known limitation is that NiceMock, NaggyMock, -// and StrictMock only works for mock methods defined using -// the MOCK_METHOD* family of macros DIRECTLY in the MockFoo class. -// If a mock method is defined in a base class of MockFoo, the "nice" -// or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. -// In particular, nesting NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock is NOT -// supported. -// -// Another known limitation is that the constructors of the base mock -// cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which are -// banned by the Google C++ style guide anyway. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" - -namespace testing { - -template -class NiceMock : public MockClass { - public: - // We don't factor out the constructor body to a common method, as - // we have to avoid a possible clash with members of MockClass. - NiceMock() { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - // C++ doesn't (yet) allow inheritance of constructors, so we have - // to define it for each arity. - template - explicit NiceMock(const A1& a1) : MockClass(a1) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2) : MockClass(a1, a2) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, - const A4& a4) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, - a6, a7) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8) : MockClass(a1, - a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, - const A9& a9) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NiceMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, const A9& a9, - const A10& a10) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10) { - ::testing::Mock::AllowUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - virtual ~NiceMock() { - ::testing::Mock::UnregisterCallReaction( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(NiceMock); -}; - -template -class NaggyMock : public MockClass { - public: - // We don't factor out the constructor body to a common method, as - // we have to avoid a possible clash with members of MockClass. - NaggyMock() { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - // C++ doesn't (yet) allow inheritance of constructors, so we have - // to define it for each arity. - template - explicit NaggyMock(const A1& a1) : MockClass(a1) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2) : MockClass(a1, a2) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, - const A4& a4) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, - a6, a7) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8) : MockClass(a1, - a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, - const A9& a9) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - NaggyMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, const A9& a9, - const A10& a10) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10) { - ::testing::Mock::WarnUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - virtual ~NaggyMock() { - ::testing::Mock::UnregisterCallReaction( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(NaggyMock); -}; - -template -class StrictMock : public MockClass { - public: - // We don't factor out the constructor body to a common method, as - // we have to avoid a possible clash with members of MockClass. - StrictMock() { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - // C++ doesn't (yet) allow inheritance of constructors, so we have - // to define it for each arity. - template - explicit StrictMock(const A1& a1) : MockClass(a1) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2) : MockClass(a1, a2) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, - const A4& a4) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, - a6, a7) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8) : MockClass(a1, - a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, - const A9& a9) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - template - StrictMock(const A1& a1, const A2& a2, const A3& a3, const A4& a4, - const A5& a5, const A6& a6, const A7& a7, const A8& a8, const A9& a9, - const A10& a10) : MockClass(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10) { - ::testing::Mock::FailUninterestingCalls( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - virtual ~StrictMock() { - ::testing::Mock::UnregisterCallReaction( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(StrictMock); -}; - -// The following specializations catch some (relatively more common) -// user errors of nesting nice and strict mocks. They do NOT catch -// all possible errors. - -// These specializations are declared but not defined, as NiceMock, -// NaggyMock, and StrictMock cannot be nested. - -template -class NiceMock >; -template -class NiceMock >; -template -class NiceMock >; - -template -class NaggyMock >; -template -class NaggyMock >; -template -class NaggyMock >; - -template -class StrictMock >; -template -class StrictMock >; -template -class StrictMock >; - -} // namespace testing - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump deleted file mode 100644 index 3ee1ce7..0000000 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h.pump +++ /dev/null @@ -1,161 +0,0 @@ -$$ -*- mode: c++; -*- -$$ This is a Pump source file. Please use Pump to convert it to -$$ gmock-generated-nice-strict.h. -$$ -$var n = 10 $$ The maximum arity we support. -// Copyright 2008, Google Inc. -// All rights reserved. -// -// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are -// met: -// -// * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright -// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -// * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above -// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer -// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the -// distribution. -// * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its -// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -// this software without specific prior written permission. -// -// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS -// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR -// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT -// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, -// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT -// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, -// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY -// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT -// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE -// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) - -// Implements class templates NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock. -// -// Given a mock class MockFoo that is created using Google Mock, -// NiceMock is a subclass of MockFoo that allows -// uninteresting calls (i.e. calls to mock methods that have no -// EXPECT_CALL specs), NaggyMock is a subclass of MockFoo -// that prints a warning when an uninteresting call occurs, and -// StrictMock is a subclass of MockFoo that treats all -// uninteresting calls as errors. -// -// Currently a mock is naggy by default, so MockFoo and -// NaggyMock behave like the same. However, we will soon -// switch the default behavior of mocks to be nice, as that in general -// leads to more maintainable tests. When that happens, MockFoo will -// stop behaving like NaggyMock and start behaving like -// NiceMock. -// -// NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock "inherit" the constructors of -// their respective base class, with up-to $n arguments. Therefore -// you can write NiceMock(5, "a") to construct a nice mock -// where MockFoo has a constructor that accepts (int, const char*), -// for example. -// -// A known limitation is that NiceMock, NaggyMock, -// and StrictMock only works for mock methods defined using -// the MOCK_METHOD* family of macros DIRECTLY in the MockFoo class. -// If a mock method is defined in a base class of MockFoo, the "nice" -// or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. -// In particular, nesting NiceMock, NaggyMock, and StrictMock is NOT -// supported. -// -// Another known limitation is that the constructors of the base mock -// cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which are -// banned by the Google C++ style guide anyway. - -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ - -#include "gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h" -#include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" - -namespace testing { - -$range kind 0..2 -$for kind [[ - -$var clazz=[[$if kind==0 [[NiceMock]] - $elif kind==1 [[NaggyMock]] - $else [[StrictMock]]]] - -$var method=[[$if kind==0 [[AllowUninterestingCalls]] - $elif kind==1 [[WarnUninterestingCalls]] - $else [[FailUninterestingCalls]]]] - -template -class $clazz : public MockClass { - public: - // We don't factor out the constructor body to a common method, as - // we have to avoid a possible clash with members of MockClass. - $clazz() { - ::testing::Mock::$method( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - // C++ doesn't (yet) allow inheritance of constructors, so we have - // to define it for each arity. - template - explicit $clazz(const A1& a1) : MockClass(a1) { - ::testing::Mock::$method( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - -$range i 2..n -$for i [[ -$range j 1..i - template <$for j, [[typename A$j]]> - $clazz($for j, [[const A$j& a$j]]) : MockClass($for j, [[a$j]]) { - ::testing::Mock::$method( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - -]] - virtual ~$clazz() { - ::testing::Mock::UnregisterCallReaction( - internal::ImplicitCast_(this)); - } - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_($clazz); -}; - -]] - -// The following specializations catch some (relatively more common) -// user errors of nesting nice and strict mocks. They do NOT catch -// all possible errors. - -// These specializations are declared but not defined, as NiceMock, -// NaggyMock, and StrictMock cannot be nested. - -template -class NiceMock >; -template -class NiceMock >; -template -class NiceMock >; - -template -class NaggyMock >; -template -class NaggyMock >; -template -class NaggyMock >; - -template -class StrictMock >; -template -class StrictMock >; -template -class StrictMock >; - -} // namespace testing - -#endif // GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_GENERATED_NICE_STRICT_H_ diff --git a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h index 33b37a7..be174b7 100644 --- a/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h +++ b/rhubarb/lib/googletest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h @@ -26,36 +26,265 @@ // THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT // (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE // OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -// -// Author: wan@google.com (Zhanyong Wan) + // Google Mock - a framework for writing C++ mock classes. // -// This file implements some commonly used argument matchers. More +// The MATCHER* family of macros can be used in a namespace scope to +// define custom matchers easily. +// +// Basic Usage +// =========== +// +// The syntax +// +// MATCHER(name, description_string) { statements; } +// +// defines a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, +// which must return a bool to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside +// the statements, you can refer to the value being matched by 'arg', +// and refer to its type by 'arg_type'. +// +// The description string documents what the matcher does, and is used +// to generate the failure message when the match fails. Since a +// MATCHER() is usually defined in a header file shared by multiple +// C++ source files, we require the description to be a C-string +// literal to avoid possible side effects. It can be empty, in which +// case we'll use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the +// description. +// +// For example: +// +// MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; } +// +// allows you to write +// +// // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is even. +// EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsEven())); +// +// or, +// +// // Verifies that the value of some_expression is even. +// EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsEven()); +// +// If the above assertion fails, it will print something like: +// +// Value of: some_expression +// Expected: is even +// Actual: 7 +// +// where the description "is even" is automatically calculated from the +// matcher name IsEven. +// +// Argument Type +// ============= +// +// Note that the type of the value being matched (arg_type) is +// determined by the context in which you use the matcher and is +// supplied to you by the compiler, so you don't need to worry about +// declaring it (nor can you). This allows the matcher to be +// polymorphic. For example, IsEven() can be used to match any type +// where the value of "(arg % 2) == 0" can be implicitly converted to +// a bool. In the "Bar(IsEven())" example above, if method Bar() +// takes an int, 'arg_type' will be int; if it takes an unsigned long, +// 'arg_type' will be unsigned long; and so on. +// +// Parameterizing Matchers +// ======================= +// +// Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the matcher. For that you +// can use another macro: +// +// MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; } +// +// For example: +// +// MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; } +// +// will allow you to write: +// +// EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n)); +// +// which may lead to this message (assuming n is 10): +// +// Value of: Blah("a") +// Expected: has absolute value 10 +// Actual: -9 +// +// Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are +// printed, making the message human-friendly. +// +// In the matcher definition body, you can write 'foo_type' to +// reference the type of a parameter named 'foo'. For example, in the +// body of MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value) above, you can write +// 'value_type' to refer to the type of 'value'. +// +// We also provide MATCHER_P2, MATCHER_P3, ..., up to MATCHER_P$n to +// support multi-parameter matchers. +// +// Describing Parameterized Matchers +// ================================= +// +// The last argument to MATCHER*() is a string-typed expression. The +// expression can reference all of the matcher's parameters and a +// special bool-typed variable named 'negation'. When 'negation' is +// false, the expression should evaluate to the matcher's description; +// otherwise it should evaluate to the description of the negation of +// the matcher. For example, +// +// using testing::PrintToString; +// +// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, +// std::string(negation ? "is not" : "is") + " in range [" + +// PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") { +// return low <= arg && arg <= hi; +// } +// ... +// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); +// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); +// +// would generate two failures that contain the text: +// +// Expected: is in range [4, 6] +// ... +// Expected: is not in range [2, 4] +// +// If you specify "" as the description, the failure message will +// contain the sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the +// parameter values printed as a tuple. For example, +// +// MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... } +// ... +// EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6)); +// EXPECT_THAT(3, Not(InClosedRange(2, 4))); +// +// would generate two failures that contain the text: +// +// Expected: in closed range (4, 6) +// ... +// Expected: not (in closed range (2, 4)) +// +// Types of Matcher Parameters +// =========================== +// +// For the purpose of typing, you can view +// +// MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... } +// +// as shorthand for +// +// template +// FooMatcherPk +// Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... } +// +// When you write Foo(v1, ..., vk), the compiler infers the types of +// the parameters v1, ..., and vk for you. If you are not happy with +// the result of the type inference, you can specify the types by +// explicitly instantiating the template, as in Foo(5, +// false). As said earlier, you don't get to (or need to) specify +// 'arg_type' as that's determined by the context in which the matcher +// is used. You can assign the result of expression Foo(p1, ..., pk) +// to a variable of type FooMatcherPk. This +// can be useful when composing matchers. +// +// While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, +// passing the parameters by pointer usually makes your code more +// readable. If, however, you still want to pass a parameter by +// reference, be aware that in the failure message generated by the +// matcher you will see the value of the referenced object but not its +// address. +// +// Explaining Match Results +// ======================== +// +// Sometimes the matcher description alone isn't enough to explain why +// the match has failed or succeeded. For example, when expecting a +// long string, it can be very helpful to also print the diff between +// the expected string and the actual one. To achieve that, you can +// optionally stream additional information to a special variable +// named result_listener, whose type is a pointer to class +// MatchResultListener: +// +// MATCHER_P(EqualsLongString, str, "") { +// if (arg == str) return true; +// +// *result_listener << "the difference: " +/// << DiffStrings(str, arg); +// return false; +// } +// +// Overloading Matchers +// ==================== +// +// You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters: +// +// MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string1) { ... } +// MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string2) { ... } +// +// Caveats +// ======= +// +// When defining a new matcher, you should also consider implementing +// MatcherInterface or using MakePolymorphicMatcher(). These +// approaches require more work than the MATCHER* macros, but also +// give you more control on the types of the value being matched and +// the matcher parameters, which may leads to better compiler error +// messages when the matcher is used wrong. They also allow +// overloading matchers based on parameter types (as opposed to just +// based on the number of parameters). +// +// MATCHER*() can only be used in a namespace scope as templates cannot be +// declared inside of a local class. +// +// More Information +// ================ +// +// To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'MATCHER' +// on +// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/docs/gmock_cook_book.md +// +// This file also implements some commonly used argument matchers. More // matchers can be defined by the user implementing the // MatcherInterface interface if necessary. +// +// See googletest/include/gtest/gtest-matchers.h for the definition of class +// Matcher, class MatcherInterface, and others. -#ifndef GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_MATCHERS_H_ -#define GMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_MATCHERS_H_ +// GOOGLETEST_CM0002 DO NOT DELETE + +#ifndef GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_MATCHERS_H_ +#define GOOGLEMOCK_INCLUDE_GMOCK_GMOCK_MATCHERS_H_ -#include #include +#include +#include #include #include +#include #include // NOLINT #include #include +#include #include #include #include "gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h" #include "gmock/internal/gmock-port.h" +#include "gmock/internal/gmock-pp.h" #include "gtest/gtest.h" -#if GTEST_HAS_STD_INITIALIZER_LIST_ -# include // NOLINT -- must be after gtest.h +// MSVC warning C5046 is new as of VS2017 version 15.8. +#if defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER >= 1915 +#define GMOCK_MAYBE_5046_ 5046 +#else +#define GMOCK_MAYBE_5046_ #endif +GTEST_DISABLE_MSC_WARNINGS_PUSH_( + 4251 GMOCK_MAYBE_5046_ /* class A needs to have dll-interface to be used by + clients of class B */ + /* Symbol involving type with internal linkage not defined */) + namespace testing { // To implement a matcher Foo for type T, define: @@ -70,123 +299,13 @@ namespace testing { // ownership management as Matcher objects can now be copied like // plain values. -// MatchResultListener is an abstract class. Its << operator can be -// used by a matcher to explain why a value matches or doesn't match. -// -// TODO(wan@google.com): add method -// bool InterestedInWhy(bool result) const; -// to indicate whether the listener is interested in why the match -// result is 'result'. -class MatchResultListener { - public: - // Creates a listener object with the given underlying ostream. The - // listener does not own the ostream, and does not dereference it - // in the constructor or destructor. - explicit MatchResultListener(::std::ostream* os) : stream_(os) {} - virtual ~MatchResultListener() = 0; // Makes this class abstract. - - // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream - // is NULL. - template - MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x) { - if (stream_ != NULL) - *stream_ << x; - return *this; - } - - // Returns the underlying ostream. - ::std::ostream* stream() { return stream_; } - - // Returns true iff the listener is interested in an explanation of - // the match result. A matcher's MatchAndExplain() method can use - // this information to avoid generating the explanation when no one - // intends to hear it. - bool IsInterested() const { return stream_ != NULL; } - - private: - ::std::ostream* const stream_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MatchResultListener); -}; - -inline MatchResultListener::~MatchResultListener() { -} - -// An instance of a subclass of this knows how to describe itself as a -// matcher. -class MatcherDescriberInterface { - public: - virtual ~MatcherDescriberInterface() {} - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. The function should print - // a verb phrase that describes the property a value matching this - // matcher should have. The subject of the verb phrase is the value - // being matched. For example, the DescribeTo() method of the Gt(7) - // matcher prints "is greater than 7". - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. For - // example, if the description of this matcher is "is greater than - // 7", the negated description could be "is not greater than 7". - // You are not required to override this when implementing - // MatcherInterface, but it is highly advised so that your matcher - // can produce good error messages. - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - *os << "not ("; - DescribeTo(os); - *os << ")"; - } -}; - -// The implementation of a matcher. -template -class MatcherInterface : public MatcherDescriberInterface { - public: - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener' if necessary (see the next paragraph), in - // the form of a non-restrictive relative clause ("which ...", - // "whose ...", etc) that describes x. For example, the - // MatchAndExplain() method of the Pointee(...) matcher should - // generate an explanation like "which points to ...". - // - // Implementations of MatchAndExplain() should add an explanation of - // the match result *if and only if* they can provide additional - // information that's not already present (or not obvious) in the - // print-out of x and the matcher's description. Whether the match - // succeeds is not a factor in deciding whether an explanation is - // needed, as sometimes the caller needs to print a failure message - // when the match succeeds (e.g. when the matcher is used inside - // Not()). - // - // For example, a "has at least 10 elements" matcher should explain - // what the actual element count is, regardless of the match result, - // as it is useful information to the reader; on the other hand, an - // "is empty" matcher probably only needs to explain what the actual - // size is when the match fails, as it's redundant to say that the - // size is 0 when the value is already known to be empty. - // - // You should override this method when defining a new matcher. - // - // It's the responsibility of the caller (Google Mock) to guarantee - // that 'listener' is not NULL. This helps to simplify a matcher's - // implementation when it doesn't care about the performance, as it - // can talk to 'listener' without checking its validity first. - // However, in order to implement dummy listeners efficiently, - // listener->stream() may be NULL. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0; - - // Inherits these methods from MatcherDescriberInterface: - // virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0; - // virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const; -}; - // A match result listener that stores the explanation in a string. class StringMatchResultListener : public MatchResultListener { public: StringMatchResultListener() : MatchResultListener(&ss_) {} // Returns the explanation accumulated so far. - internal::string str() const { return ss_.str(); } + std::string str() const { return ss_.str(); } // Clears the explanation accumulated so far. void Clear() { ss_.str(""); } @@ -197,306 +316,6 @@ class StringMatchResultListener : public MatchResultListener { GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(StringMatchResultListener); }; -namespace internal { - -struct AnyEq { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a == b; } -}; -struct AnyNe { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a != b; } -}; -struct AnyLt { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a < b; } -}; -struct AnyGt { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a > b; } -}; -struct AnyLe { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a <= b; } -}; -struct AnyGe { - template - bool operator()(const A& a, const B& b) const { return a >= b; } -}; - -// A match result listener that ignores the explanation. -class DummyMatchResultListener : public MatchResultListener { - public: - DummyMatchResultListener() : MatchResultListener(NULL) {} - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(DummyMatchResultListener); -}; - -// A match result listener that forwards the explanation to a given -// ostream. The difference between this and MatchResultListener is -// that the former is concrete. -class StreamMatchResultListener : public MatchResultListener { - public: - explicit StreamMatchResultListener(::std::ostream* os) - : MatchResultListener(os) {} - - private: - GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(StreamMatchResultListener); -}; - -// An internal class for implementing Matcher, which will derive -// from it. We put functionalities common to all Matcher -// specializations here to avoid code duplication. -template -class MatcherBase { - public: - // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match - // result to 'listener'. - bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return impl_->MatchAndExplain(x, listener); - } - - // Returns true iff this matcher matches x. - bool Matches(T x) const { - DummyMatchResultListener dummy; - return MatchAndExplain(x, &dummy); - } - - // Describes this matcher to an ostream. - void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { impl_->DescribeTo(os); } - - // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream. - void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - impl_->DescribeNegationTo(os); - } - - // Explains why x matches, or doesn't match, the matcher. - void ExplainMatchResultTo(T x, ::std::ostream* os) const { - StreamMatchResultListener listener(os); - MatchAndExplain(x, &listener); - } - - // Returns the describer for this matcher object; retains ownership - // of the describer, which is only guaranteed to be alive when - // this matcher object is alive. - const MatcherDescriberInterface* GetDescriber() const { - return impl_.get(); - } - - protected: - MatcherBase() {} - - // Constructs a matcher from its implementation. - explicit MatcherBase(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : impl_(impl) {} - - virtual ~MatcherBase() {} - - private: - // shared_ptr (util/gtl/shared_ptr.h) and linked_ptr have similar - // interfaces. The former dynamically allocates a chunk of memory - // to hold the reference count, while the latter tracks all - // references using a circular linked list without allocating - // memory. It has been observed that linked_ptr performs better in - // typical scenarios. However, shared_ptr can out-perform - // linked_ptr when there are many more uses of the copy constructor - // than the default constructor. - // - // If performance becomes a problem, we should see if using - // shared_ptr helps. - ::testing::internal::linked_ptr > impl_; -}; - -} // namespace internal - -// A Matcher is a copyable and IMMUTABLE (except by assignment) -// object that can check whether a value of type T matches. The -// implementation of Matcher is just a linked_ptr to const -// MatcherInterface, so copying is fairly cheap. Don't inherit -// from Matcher! -template -class Matcher : public internal::MatcherBase { - public: - // Constructs a null matcher. Needed for storing Matcher objects in STL - // containers. A default-constructed matcher is not yet initialized. You - // cannot use it until a valid value has been assigned to it. - explicit Matcher() {} // NOLINT - - // Constructs a matcher from its implementation. - explicit Matcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : internal::MatcherBase(impl) {} - - // Implicit constructor here allows people to write - // EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5)) instead of EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Eq(5))) sometimes - Matcher(T value); // NOLINT -}; - -// The following two specializations allow the user to write str -// instead of Eq(str) and "foo" instead of Eq("foo") when a string -// matcher is expected. -template <> -class GTEST_API_ Matcher - : public internal::MatcherBase { - public: - Matcher() {} - - explicit Matcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : internal::MatcherBase(impl) {} - - // Allows the user to write str instead of Eq(str) sometimes, where - // str is a string object. - Matcher(const internal::string& s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to write "foo" instead of Eq("foo") sometimes. - Matcher(const char* s); // NOLINT -}; - -template <> -class GTEST_API_ Matcher - : public internal::MatcherBase { - public: - Matcher() {} - - explicit Matcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : internal::MatcherBase(impl) {} - - // Allows the user to write str instead of Eq(str) sometimes, where - // str is a string object. - Matcher(const internal::string& s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to write "foo" instead of Eq("foo") sometimes. - Matcher(const char* s); // NOLINT -}; - -#if GTEST_HAS_STRING_PIECE_ -// The following two specializations allow the user to write str -// instead of Eq(str) and "foo" instead of Eq("foo") when a StringPiece -// matcher is expected. -template <> -class GTEST_API_ Matcher - : public internal::MatcherBase { - public: - Matcher() {} - - explicit Matcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : internal::MatcherBase(impl) {} - - // Allows the user to write str instead of Eq(str) sometimes, where - // str is a string object. - Matcher(const internal::string& s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to write "foo" instead of Eq("foo") sometimes. - Matcher(const char* s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to pass StringPieces directly. - Matcher(StringPiece s); // NOLINT -}; - -template <> -class GTEST_API_ Matcher - : public internal::MatcherBase { - public: - Matcher() {} - - explicit Matcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) - : internal::MatcherBase(impl) {} - - // Allows the user to write str instead of Eq(str) sometimes, where - // str is a string object. - Matcher(const internal::string& s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to write "foo" instead of Eq("foo") sometimes. - Matcher(const char* s); // NOLINT - - // Allows the user to pass StringPieces directly. - Matcher(StringPiece s); // NOLINT -}; -#endif // GTEST_HAS_STRING_PIECE_ - -// The PolymorphicMatcher class template makes it easy to implement a -// polymorphic matcher (i.e. a matcher that can match values of more -// than one type, e.g. Eq(n) and NotNull()). -// -// To define a polymorphic matcher, a user should provide an Impl -// class that has a DescribeTo() method and a DescribeNegationTo() -// method, and define a member function (or member function template) -// -// bool MatchAndExplain(const Value& value, -// MatchResultListener* listener) const; -// -// See the definition of NotNull() for a complete example. -template -class PolymorphicMatcher { - public: - explicit PolymorphicMatcher(const Impl& an_impl) : impl_(an_impl) {} - - // Returns a mutable reference to the underlying matcher - // implementation object. - Impl& mutable_impl() { return impl_; } - - // Returns an immutable reference to the underlying matcher - // implementation object. - const Impl& impl() const { return impl_; } - - template - operator Matcher() const { - return Matcher(new MonomorphicImpl(impl_)); - } - - private: - template - class MonomorphicImpl : public MatcherInterface { - public: - explicit MonomorphicImpl(const Impl& impl) : impl_(impl) {} - - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - impl_.DescribeTo(os); - } - - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { - impl_.DescribeNegationTo(os); - } - - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return impl_.MatchAndExplain(x, listener); - } - - private: - const Impl impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(MonomorphicImpl); - }; - - Impl impl_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(PolymorphicMatcher); -}; - -// Creates a matcher from its implementation. This is easier to use -// than the Matcher constructor as it doesn't require you to -// explicitly write the template argument, e.g. -// -// MakeMatcher(foo); -// vs -// Matcher(foo); -template -inline Matcher MakeMatcher(const MatcherInterface* impl) { - return Matcher(impl); -} - -// Creates a polymorphic matcher from its implementation. This is -// easier to use than the PolymorphicMatcher constructor as it -// doesn't require you to explicitly write the template argument, e.g. -// -// MakePolymorphicMatcher(foo); -// vs -// PolymorphicMatcher(foo); -template -inline PolymorphicMatcher MakePolymorphicMatcher(const Impl& impl) { - return PolymorphicMatcher(impl); -} - // Anything inside the 'internal' namespace IS INTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION // and MUST NOT BE USED IN USER CODE!!! namespace internal { @@ -515,7 +334,7 @@ template class MatcherCastImpl { public: static Matcher Cast(const M& polymorphic_matcher_or_value) { - // M can be a polymorhic matcher, in which case we want to use + // M can be a polymorphic matcher, in which case we want to use // its conversion operator to create Matcher. Or it can be a value // that should be passed to the Matcher's constructor. // @@ -524,28 +343,22 @@ class MatcherCastImpl { // constructor from M (this usually happens when T has an implicit // constructor from any type). // - // It won't work to unconditionally implict_cast + // It won't work to unconditionally implicit_cast // polymorphic_matcher_or_value to Matcher because it won't trigger // a user-defined conversion from M to T if one exists (assuming M is // a value). - return CastImpl( - polymorphic_matcher_or_value, - BooleanConstant< - internal::ImplicitlyConvertible >::value>()); + return CastImpl(polymorphic_matcher_or_value, + std::is_convertible>{}, + std::is_convertible{}); } private: - static Matcher CastImpl(const M& value, BooleanConstant) { - // M can't be implicitly converted to Matcher, so M isn't a polymorphic - // matcher. It must be a value then. Use direct initialization to create - // a matcher. - return Matcher(ImplicitCast_(value)); - } - + template static Matcher CastImpl(const M& polymorphic_matcher_or_value, - BooleanConstant) { + std::true_type /* convertible_to_matcher */, + std::integral_constant) { // M is implicitly convertible to Matcher, which means that either - // M is a polymorhpic matcher or Matcher has an implicit constructor + // M is a polymorphic matcher or Matcher has an implicit constructor // from M. In both cases using the implicit conversion will produce a // matcher. // @@ -554,6 +367,29 @@ class MatcherCastImpl { // (first to create T from M and then to create Matcher from T). return polymorphic_matcher_or_value; } + + // M can't be implicitly converted to Matcher, so M isn't a polymorphic + // matcher. It's a value of a type implicitly convertible to T. Use direct + // initialization to create a matcher. + static Matcher CastImpl(const M& value, + std::false_type /* convertible_to_matcher */, + std::true_type /* convertible_to_T */) { + return Matcher(ImplicitCast_(value)); + } + + // M can't be implicitly converted to either Matcher or T. Attempt to use + // polymorphic matcher Eq(value) in this case. + // + // Note that we first attempt to perform an implicit cast on the value and + // only fall back to the polymorphic Eq() matcher afterwards because the + // latter calls bool operator==(const Lhs& lhs, const Rhs& rhs) in the end + // which might be undefined even when Rhs is implicitly convertible to Lhs + // (e.g. std::pair vs. std::pair). + // + // We don't define this method inline as we need the declaration of Eq(). + static Matcher CastImpl(const M& value, + std::false_type /* convertible_to_matcher */, + std::false_type /* convertible_to_T */); }; // This more specialized version is used when MatcherCast()'s argument @@ -573,22 +409,41 @@ class MatcherCastImpl > { : source_matcher_(source_matcher) {} // We delegate the matching logic to the source matcher. - virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const { - return source_matcher_.MatchAndExplain(static_cast(x), listener); + bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const override { + using FromType = typename std::remove_cv::type>::type>::type; + using ToType = typename std::remove_cv::type>::type>::type; + // Do not allow implicitly converting base*/& to derived*/&. + static_assert( + // Do not trigger if only one of them is a pointer. That implies a + // regular conversion and not a down_cast. + (std::is_pointer::type>::value != + std::is_pointer::type>::value) || + std::is_same::value || + !std::is_base_of::value, + "Can't implicitly convert from to "); + + // Do the cast to `U` explicitly if necessary. + // Otherwise, let implicit conversions do the trick. + using CastType = + typename std::conditional::value, + T&, U>::type; + + return source_matcher_.MatchAndExplain(static_cast(x), + listener); } - virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { + void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const override { source_matcher_.DescribeTo(os); } - virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { + void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const override { source_matcher_.DescribeNegationTo(os); } private: const Matcher source_matcher_; - - GTEST_DISALLOW_ASSIGN_(Impl); }; }; @@ -600,6 +455,50 @@ class MatcherCastImpl > { static Matcher Cast(const Matcher& matcher) { return matcher; } }; +// Template specialization for parameterless Matcher. +template +class MatcherBaseImpl { + public: + MatcherBaseImpl() = default; + + template + operator ::testing::Matcher() const { // NOLINT(runtime/explicit) + return ::testing::Matcher(new + typename Derived::template gmock_Impl()); + } +}; + +// Template specialization for Matcher with parameters. +template